Orissa High Court
Rajesh Barik vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 20 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.8877 of 2025
Rajesh Barik ........ Petitioner
Mr. Ramakanta Sahoo, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
20.09.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR/PR Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
315 12.06.2025 Keonjhar Keonjhar Section
Sadar Sadar P.S. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29
Case No.315 of NDPS Act
of 2025
corresponding
to Special
Case No.17 of
2025 pending
in the files of
learned
Sessions
Judge-cum-
Special Judge,
Keonjhar
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 Keonjhar
Sadar P.S. Case No.315 of 2025 corresponding to Special Case
No.17 of 2025 pending in the files of learned Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Keonjhar, has filed the present application
seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged
offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
4. The brief fact of the case is that 25 kg. 500 grams of ganja has
been seized from the unlawful possession of the Petitioner and
other accused persons while they were transporting the same in
a red colour Glamour bearing Registration No.OD-09-B-2846.
They were also caught red-handed by the Police.
5. He further submits that two co-accused persons have already
been released on bail.
6. 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 have no connection
whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by the
prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in custody
since 12.06.2025 and the final P.R. has already been submitted.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy
trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Therefore, keeping the petitioners in prolonged
custody without commencement or conclusion of trial is
unjustified and amounts to a violation of their fundamental
rights. 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. 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
undertrial 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
accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand
does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this
right.
8. 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
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
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.
9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail.
10. Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering
the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the
petitioner's custody, it is directed that the petitioner be released
on bail in the aforesaid case subject to stringent terms and
conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court
seized of the matter, with the further condition that:-
i. The Petitioner shall appear before the local Police
Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM.
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, shall plant 100 saplings of local
varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around
their 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 land for the plantation.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation
of the bail.
11. 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 as required.
12. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit
before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have
been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants
for a period of two years.
13. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall
extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary
saplings.
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
