Dhariti Sundar Sardar vs State Of Odisha

S.K. Panigrahi, J

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

The petitioner being in custody in connection with Mathili P.S. Case No.120 of 2020 corresponding to T.R.Case No.93 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge, Malkangiri, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)C/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the Mathili Police while performing patrolling duty in the night, found two vehicles i.e. one car and a bike coming from Govindapalli side. On seeing the police party, the motor cyclist and occupants of the car stopped the vehicle and fled from the spot. The Police chased them and nabbed two persons who were the occupants of the car. The other occupants and the motor cyclist fled towards the dense jungle. Police recovered huge quantity of 'ganja' weighing around 152.900 Kg from the car. The contrabasnd 'ganja' was then seized.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a chance occupant of the vehicle because of insufficient transport facilities. The petitioner being the Police personnel, he had to travel to some places urgently for which he had boarded the vehicle. He was unaware about the transportation of contraband 'ganja' in the vehicle. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no role in the entire episode but was subjected to stricter scrutiny. He has been languishing in jail custody for more than one year.

The Petitioner has already spent in custody for about more than one year. The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again, has expressed displeasure on the delay of trial of the undertrial prisoners and their sufferings due to such delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar  (1980) 1 SCC 81  has observed that "speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right in India; it is implicit in a broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution". Certain provisions of the Cr.P.C. also impose a statutory obligation upon the courts to proceed the trial "expeditiously" so that the case could be disposed of without inordinate delay. The speedy trial of offences is a desirable goal because long delay can defeat justice. There is a common proverb - 'delay defeats justice'. Hence, it is said that speedy justice is the essence of an organised society and so, cases should be decided as early as possible. The present case fails to confirm to the aforesaid stand as articulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner but concedes the detention of the petitioner in custody for more than one year without the commencement of trial, despite charge sheet being already submitted.

Considering the submissions made, facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of detention of the petitioner in custody, 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 learned trial court on each date of posting of the case;

ii. he shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail and

iii he shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner.

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

It is made clear that This order shall not be treated as precedent in so far as other co-accused persons are concerned.

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.  .

....................................