Maheswar Naik vs State Of Odisha

S. K. Panigrahi, J

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner annd learned counsel for the State.

The petittioner being in custody in connection with Excise District Mobile  Khurda P.R. Case No.133 of  2019-20 correspondiing to T.R Case No. 82 of 2019 pendding in the court of leearned Additional Sessions Judge-Cuum-Special Judge  Undder  N.D.P.S.  Act,  Khurda  registered  for  the alleged commmission of offence under Section 20((b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, has filed this application under Section 439 of CrPC forr his release on bail.

The brieef facts of the prosecution case arre that on 27.11.2019 at about 4 A.M. while the informmant, along with his staff were performing night patrolling duty, they witnessed a Maruti Dzire car bearing Temporary Registrationn Mark No.OR/7/TMP/2019/1597 appproaching towards them. On suspicion they detained the car and seized 56kggs of Contraband Ganja.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitss that the prosecution allegations leveled against thee present petitioner are false, baseless and concocted. The petitioner is in no waay connected with the offence as allegged by the prosecution. The petitioner is a respectable memmber of the society and has no criminal precedents. The petittioner is in custody since 27.11.2019.The trial is yet to be coommenced and there is less likelihood of completion of triial in near future.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently oppposed the bail application with the submission that the quantity of ganja is aboove the commercial quantity.

The Petiitioner 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 under trial 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 trrial 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 “expedditiously” so that the case could be disposed of without inoordinate delay. The speedy trial of offfences is a desirable goal because long delay can defeat justtice. There is a commoon proverb - ‘delay defeats justice’. Hence, it is said that speedy justice is the essence of an organized society and so, cases should be decided as early as possible.

The present case fails to confirm to the aforesaiid stand as articulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

However, having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the prolonged detentiion of the petitioner in custody for about more than two yeears and, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid caase by the learned court in seisin over the matter with some stringent terms and conditions as deeemed just and proper including the conditions that:-

i. thee petitioner shall appear before the court beloww on each date of posting of the case;

ii. hee shall not involve himself in any criiminal offennce while on bail; and

iii. he shall not tamper with the proseccution evideence in any manner and

iv. thhe petitioner shall submit  the receipt before the court below showing deposit of Rs.50000/- in the Welfare Fund of High Court Bar Association becauuse he has suppressed before this Courrt that anothher bail application has been filed before the Court below and also another bail application vide BLAPL No.802 of 2022 has been filed beforre this Court by the present petitioner through different counsel.

Violaation of any of the conditions, shall entail cancellationn of bail.

The BLAAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

……………………....