Orissa High Court
Sarojit Dafadar @ Sarojit vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 6 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 10138 of 2025
Sarojit Dafadar @ Sarojit .... Petitioners
Daphadar
Mr. Mangu Nandy, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 06.10.2025
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Station and Courts'
Name
53 03.03.2023 Kalimela Special G.R. Section
No.67 of 20(b)(ii)(C)2
2023 9 of
pending in N.D.P.S.
the court of Act.
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge-cum-
Special
Judge,
Malkangiri
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner being in custody in connection with Special
G.R. Case No.67 of 2023 arising out of Kalimela P.S. Case
No.53 of 2023, pending in the court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri,
registered for the alleged commission of offence under
Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition
for his release on bail.
4. The brief fact of the case is that on 03.03.2023 at about 5.10
P.M., IIC Surya Prakash Naik of Kalimela P.S. along with
his staff was performing evening patrolling duty at Potteru
and Chitrangapalli area. At about 6.25 P.M. while they were
proceeding towards Kasalkonda from MPV-15 via canal
road, they found one Hero Honda Passion Pro motor cycle
bearing Registration No.OR-30-3016 coming towards them
in a high speed from Kasalkonda side. Seeing the police
team the rider of the motor cycle stopped at a distance of 15
meters from the police staff, turned round his motor cycle
and tried to flee away but, caught red handed by the police.
They found one plastic sack packed with something tied on
the rear seat. On being asked, he disclosed his name as
Sarojit Dafadar and confessed that there was Ganja in the
plastic sack and he was transporting the same to Andhra
Pradesh for sale by procuring the same from interior area of
Chitrakonda. On being searched, they seized 36 Kgs, 100
grams of Ganja from the exclusive and conscious possession
of the accused.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has no knowledge about the transportation of
contraband ganja. He further contends that nothing has
been seized from the conscious possession of the present
Petitioner. The Petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2023.
Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner
may be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
Hon'ble 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. vs Home Secretary, State of
Bihar, wherein the Hon'ble 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 State
cannot be permitted to deny the constitutional right
of 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."
7. He further argues that the period of long incarceration
suffered, which entitle 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 Bihar 1wherein it has been held
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. 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.
8. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 that incarceration has
further deleterious effects where the accused belongs to 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
(1981) 3SCC 671
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.
9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail stating that the quantity of ganja seized is
clearly above the commercial quantity prescribed under the
NDPS Act which bars granting of bail.
10. Without going into the merit of the case and based on
the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the
Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with
some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and
proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter with
further conditions that:-
i. The Petitioner shall appear before the
local Police Station on every Monday
between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.;
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; and
iv. The Petitioner shall plant 100 saplings 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Vacation Judge
Murmu
