Ram Babu Kumar vs State Of Odisha

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi

F.I.R.

No.

Dated

Police Station

Case No.

and Courts’ Name

Sections

0026

20.02.2021

Bisam Katak

T.R.      case No.    43    of 2021 pending    in the  court  of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge,

Gunupur

20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

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

The petitioner being in custody in connection with Bisam Katak P.S. case No.26 of 2021 corresponding to T.R. case No.43 of 2021 pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act has filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

The brief fact of the case is that on 20.02.2021 at about 3.25 P.M. while the informant S.I. of Police of Bissamkatak Police Station along with his staffs were checking the vehicles, found one white colour car followed by one truck coming in high speed from Karla Ghati side. Seeing the police team from a distance of 200 meters, the car stopped, two occupants got down there from and fled away towards and nearby forest. When the truck was stopped, the police personnel detained the petitioner-driver along with three others who were boarded the truck. On being frantically searched, they recovered huge quantity of ‘Ganja’ kept in 38 plastic packets each containing six packets wrapped with cello tape weighing 5 Kg. 100 grams

each. On being asked, the Petitioner including others could not produce the authenticated documents in respect of such transportation. After observing all formalities, they seized the contraband ‘Ganja’ along with the vehicles. Thereafter, the informant has registered the case against the petitioner and other accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2021. In the event of his release on bail, he shall abide by any terms and conditions as fixed by the Court..

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present petitioner has already spent in custody since 20.02.2021, which is more than two years.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner with the submission that the petitioner belongs to outside Orissa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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."

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 1981)3 SCC 671  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.

The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 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 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.

Considering the facts and circumstances put forth as well as period of detention, it is directed that let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by furnishing cash security/property security of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that

i) he shall appear before the court below 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 with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall attend on the date of the trial and shall not violate any of condition fixed by the court in seisin over the matter.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

……………………….