Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Md. Afsar @ Maggi vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S)
2025 Latest Caselaw 656 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 656 Ori
Judgement Date : 15 May, 2025

Orissa High Court

Md. Afsar @ Maggi vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 15 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                      BLAPL No.2304 of 2025

                                     Md. Afsar @ Maggi             ....            Petitioner(s)
                                                                   Mr. Arun Kumar Budhia, Adv.
                                                                   Mr. Soumya Ranjan Das, Adv.

                                                               -versus-
                                     State of Odisha                ....         Opposite Party(s)
                                                                          Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC
                                              CORAM:
                                              HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                Order                            ORDER
                                No.                             15.05.2025
                             F.I.R.   Dated     Police        Case No. and            Sections
                              No.               Station       Courts' Name
                             355    10.09.2022 Plant       Plantsite P.S. Case Sections 21(C) and 25
                                               Site        No.355 of 2022 of the N.D.P.S Act.
                                                           corresponding     to
                                                           Spl.    G.R.    Case
                                                           No.43/20 of 2022-23
                                                           pending in the
                                                           Court of learned 2nd
                                                           Additional Sessions
                                                           Judge, Rourkela
                            01.       1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

                                      2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned

                                      counsel for the State.

                                      3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with

                                      Plantsite P.S. Case No.355 of 2022 corresponding to Spl.

                                      G.R. Case No.43/20 of 2022-23 pending in the Court of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
                                      learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela registered
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48

                                                                                         Page 1 of 6
                                   for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 21(C)

                                  and 25 of the N.D.P.S Act, has filed this application for his

                                  release on bail.

                                  4. The brief fact of the case is that on 10.09.2022 at about

                                  5.00 A.M. during course of patrolling duty near Nayabazar

                                  Chhak area the Police personnel on getting credible

                                  information regarding selling of contraband brown

                                  sugar/heroin detained the present Petitioner who was in a

                                  car. On search, they recovered 252.440 grams of

                                  contraband brown sugar/ heroin from the said car in

                                  which the present Petitioner was sitting. Accordingly,

                                  upon filing of the F.I.R and completion of investigation,

                                  the Petitioner was arrested and he has been languishing in

                                  custody since 11.09.2022.

                                  5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the

                                  Petitioner has been entangled in this case on suspicion. He

                                  was only travelling through the said car from which the

                                  contraband brown sugar has been recovered. He had no

                                  idea regarding transportation of alleged contraband

                                  brown sugar through the said car.

                                  6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that

                                  on the earlier occasion the co-accused person had

                                  approached the Supreme Court through SLP No.497 of

                                  2024. After hearing the parties concerned the Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed                  Court vide order dated 06.03.2024 though declined to
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48        grant bail to the said co-accused person, directed the
                                                                                     Page 2 of 6
                                           learned Court below to conclude the trial within a period

                                          of six months from the date of presentation of an

                                          authenticated copy of the order dated 06.03.2024. At this

                                          juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that

                                          despite presentation of an authenticated copy of the order

                                          dated 06.03.2024 passed in the above noted SLP before the

                                          learned Court below, the trial in the Spl.G.R. Case

                                          No.43/20 of 2022-23 has not been concluded till today. He

                                          further submits that out of twenty-three charge sheeted

                                          witnesses eighteen witnesses have already been examined

                                          in the meantime. He, in the process, prays for permitting

                                          the Petitioner to be released on bail.

                                          7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that

                                          the Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy trial

                                          is a fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a

                                          person in custody for such a long time without any trial is

                                          not justified and violative of his fundamental right. The

                                          importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the

                                          case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vrs. Home Secretary,

                                          State of Bihar 1, wherein the Supreme Court has iterated

                                          that:
                                                      "Speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier judgment dated
                                                      26th February, 1979, an essential ingredient of 'reasonable,
                                                      fair and just" procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is
                                                      the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a
                                                      procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the accused. The
Signature Not Verified                                State cannot be permitted to deny the constitutional right of
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa    1
Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48            1979 AIR 1360
                                                                                                            Page 3 of 6
                                                      speedy trial to the accused on the ground that the State has
                                                     no adequate financial resources to incur the necessary
                                                     expenditure needed for improving the administrative and
                                                     judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial."
                                           8. He further argues that the period of long incarceration

                                           suffered, which entitles the Petitioner for grant of bail.

                                           Right to Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an under

                                           trial prisoner and this observations have been resonated,

                                           time and again, in several judgments including that of

                                           Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar2 wherein it has

                                           been stated that the obligation of the State or the

                                           complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case

                                           with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in a country

                                           like ours, where the large majority of the accused come

                                           from poorer and weaker sections of the society and are not

                                           versed with laws and after face the dearth of competent

                                           legal advice, the application of the said NDPS Rule is

                                           wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an

                                           accused demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one,

                                           may be a relevant factor in his favour. But an accused

                                           cannot be disentitled from complaining of infringement of

                                           his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask

                                           for or insist upon a speedy trial.

                                           9.    The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @

                                           Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)3 that incarceration has

                                           further deleterious effects where the accused belongs to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant   2
Reason: Authentication                (1981) 3 SCC 671
Location: High Court of Orissa    3
Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48            SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023
                                                                                                          Page 4 of 6
                                   the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood,

                                  and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of

                                  family bonds and alienation from society. The courts

                                  therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in

                                  the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is

                                  irreparable), and ensure that trials especially in cases,

                                  where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up

                                  and concluded speedily.

                                  10. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the

                                  prayer for bail of the Petitioner. She further submits that

                                  such type of offences is not tolerable in a law abiding

                                  society. She, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this

                                  BLAPL.

                                  11. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both

                                  the parties, this Court without going into the merits of the

                                  case, directs the court in seisin over the matter to release

                                  the present Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on some

                                  stringent terms and conditions with further conditions

                                  that:

                                          i.     the Petitioner shall appear before the
                                                 concerned local Police Station in every
                                                 fortnight on Monday between 10.00A.M. to
                                                 1.

00P.M. till conclusion of the trial;

ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal activities in future; iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of

Designation: Personal Assistant iv. the Petitioner shall clean the premises of the Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48 Plantsite Police Station in the morning hour

(between 6.00 A.M. to 8.00 A.M.) for two months from the date of his actual release in the aforesaid case. The I.I.C, Plantsite Police Station shall provide the cleaning articles like broom, phenyl and other items to the Petitioner so that he can clean the said premises.

Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail

cancellation of the bail.

12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter