CIVIL APPEAL 116 of 2025 on 26 February 1979

Order No.

01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.8873 of 2025

..…... Petitioner

Chittaranjan Tandi

Mr. Krushna Chandra Dash, Adv.

-Versus-

………. Opposite Party Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC

State of Odisha

CORAM: DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER 20.09.2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Komna P.S. Case No.116 of 2025 corresponding to S.A. No.19 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Spl. Judge, Nuapada, has filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the on 16.05.2025 while the informant was conducting patrolling duty, got information about the illegal possession of ganja and rushed to Jethupalli village and traced the alleged house of the accused. It is alleged that the accused and one Bira Tandi fled away from the spot by throwing some packets from the roof of the house of the Petitioner which was found to be 7 plastic packets of ganja and the net quantity is 15 kg. 350 gm. The Petitioner was arrested on 07.07.2025.

5. He further submits that the Petitioner is an innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He is the sole earning member of his family and being a permanent resident of village-Jethupali,

under Komna P.S. in the district of Nuapada, there is no chance of absconding.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband ganja. It is contended that the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by the prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in custody since 07.07.2025 and the final P.R. has already been submitted. The quantity of ganja seized i.e. 15 kg. 350 gms comes under below commercial quantity. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 Petitioners 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 Bihar[1], 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

1 (1981) 3 SCC 671.

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 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.

2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.

10. Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the petitioner’ 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. 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. 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, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant 200 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 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 petitioners 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 petitioners by supplying the necessary saplings.

14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

Judge

Sumitra

Signature Not Verified

Digitally SignedSigned by: SUMITRA NAYAKReason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, CuttackDate: 30-Sep-2025 14:55:12