Orissa High Court
Philip Digal vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 13 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.1944 of 2025
Philip Digal ........ Petitioner
Mr. A. P. Bose, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
13.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR/ Dated Police Case No. and Sections
PR Station Courts' Name
No.
0319 28.05.2024 Gangapur G.R. Case No.10 Section
of 2024(N) 20(b)(ii)(C)
arising out of of NDPS
Gangapur P.S. Act
Case No.319 of
2024 pending in
the court of
learned Special
Judge-cum-
Additional
Sessions Judge,
Aska, Ganjam
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with G.R. Case
No.10 of 2024(N) arising out of Gangapur P.S. Case No.319 of
2024 pending in the court of learned Special Judge-cum-
Additional Sessions Judge, Aska, Ganjam, has filed the present
application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered
for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 28.05.2024 at about
7.30 A.M, while the S.I. of Police namely Ajaya Kumar Mallik
and staff of Gangapur Police Station were on duty, found a car
bearing Registration No.OD-02-BQ-0769 met with an accident.
But, the driver and its occupants were not sustained any injury.
On search of said car, they recovered two plastic gunny bags,
one containing 43 kgs and another 29 kgs 500 grams, in total 72
kg 500 grams. On Demand, the driver and the occupants failed
to produce any license or authority in support of illegal and
conscious possession of the contraband ganja.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband
ganja. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection
whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by the
prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in custody
since 29.05.2024 and the charge sheet has already been filed on
21.11.2024. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be
released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him
to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right
to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every
under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This
principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State
of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where
applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that
criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable
promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion
of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker
sections of society and often lack access to competent legal
assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by
the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand
does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this
right.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v.
State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that
incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching
consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata.
It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family
structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in
such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts
irreparable harm--especially if the accused is ultimately
acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to
these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those
arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are
prioritized and concluded expeditiously.
8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized
is greater than commercial quantity weighing 72 kg 500 grams.
In such premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not
deserve for bail.
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
9. Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering
the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the
petitioner's custody, this Court is of the view that the petitioner
should be granted bail by the learned court in seisin over the
matter. However, such release shall be conditioned upon
stringent terms and conditions, as the learned court deems fit
and just. The conditions are as follows:-
i. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on
each date of posting of the case.
ii. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any
criminal offence while on bail.
iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant
300 saplings each of local varieties, such as mango, neem,
tamarind, etc., around his village on Government land,
community land, or private land in the possession of the
Petitioner or his family members. In the event that
suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall
assist in identifying the land for plantation.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to
cancellation of the bail.
8. The District Nursery/D.F.O. shall extend the helping hand by
supplying the saplings to the Petitioner and the Revenue
Authority shall assist the Petitioner in identifying the location for
plantation of the saplings. If the land is not available, the
Petitioner to approach the Revenue Authority for identifying the
land for plantation and the Revenue Authority shall do the
needful.
9. The I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station in coordination with
the local Forest Officer shall monitor; whether the Petitioner has
planted the saplings or not.
10. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an
affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local Police
Station assuring that he shall maintain those plants for two years.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation
of the bail.
11. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Signature
Sumitra
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 28-May-2025 12:57:00
