Allowed

Deba Padiami v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Jul 2023BLAPL/2782/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed a bail petition filed by Deba Padiami, charged under the NDPS Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the fundamental right to a speedy trial, the court granted bail noting the petitioner's two-year custody without trial and his role as a passenger.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on stringent conditions including appearance on every date and prohibition on tampering with evidence or committing further offences.

Deba Padiami Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.2782 of 2023

¶3

Deba Padiami

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr.Nihar Ranjan Sahoo, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha Opposite Party Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 12.07.2023
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts’ Name
96 05.08.2020 Kalimela T.R. case No.74 Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
of 2020 pending the N.D.P.S. Act.
in the court of
learned Addl.
Sessions Judge-
cum- Special
Judge,Malkangiri

¶10

¶11

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶12

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

¶13

3 . The petitioner being in custody in connection with Kalimela P.S. Case No. 96 of 2020 corresponding to T.R.

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 13-Jul-2023 11:50:38

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Case No.74 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Malkangiri registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act has filed this petition for his release on bail.

¶19

4 . It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 05.08.2020 while the S.I. of Police of Kalimela P.S. along with his staff was performing evening patrolling duty in between Kalimela to Poteru area at about 1 A.M. they detected that near Kangurukonda village bridge two autos along with two motor cycles coming from the side of Kalimela and going towards Poteru being loaded with gunny bags. The first Auto was stopped wherein three occupants were present holding plastic gunny bags. On being asked, those three persons disclosed their names. On seeing the detention of the first auto, the occupants in another auto and the motor cycles riders fled away from the spot leaving the auto and motorcycles taking the advantage of darkness. However, the Police recovered 525 Kgs. of Ganja from their possession and seized. Thereafter, they forwarded them to the jail custody including the present petitioner.

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 13-Jul-2023 11:50:38

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is a passenger. He was travelling in the auto from Surat to his destination place. He had no knowledge about the contents of the plastic bag. Nothing has been seized from his possession. Further, no witnesses have whispered an incriminating word against the petitioner. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 05.08.2020 which is more than two years and trial has not yet been commenced. Further, there is less likelihood of completion of trial in the near future.

¶25

6 . Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner.

¶26

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court have 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:

¶27

"Speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier judgment dated 26th February, 1979, an essential

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 13-Jul-2023 11:50:38

¶31

// 4 //

¶32

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."

¶33

8. 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 Bihar¹ 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

¶34

1 1981)3 SCC 671

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 13-Jul-2023 11:50:38

¶38

// 5 //

¶39

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.

¶40

9 . The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)² 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.

¶41

10 . Considering the submissions made and the factum of release of the co-accused person, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the court in seisin over the matter shall release the

¶42

2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 13-Jul-2023 11:50:38

¶46

// 6 //

¶47

¶48

Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that:

¶49

i. the Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case,

¶50

ii he shall not indulge in any criminal offence while on bail and iii . he shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶51

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

¶52

11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶53

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Page 6 of 6

¶56

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 13-Jul-2023 11:50:38

Deba Padiami v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deba Padiami v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhaya Charan Das Vs Branch Manager,L.I.C.of India

M/S.Sova Metals and Po Vs Dm,N.I.a.Co.Ltd.

Mgt.of Rashmi Motors Vs Prakash Ku.Patnaik

Janaki Sahoo Vs State and Ors.

M/S Adarsha Noble Corporation Limited Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Sridhar Harijan Vs State of Odisha