Allowed

Umesh Kumar Khilo @ Lalu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Jul 2023BLAPL/5720/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa granted bail to a petitioner in an NDPS case involving illegal transportation of Ganja. The Court relied on the fundamental right to a speedy trial and the fact that co-accused had been released, directing the lower court to release the petitioner on stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on terms of appearing on Sundays, attending every trial hearing, committing no criminal offence, and not tampering with witness evidence.

Umesh Kumar Khilo @ Lalu Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5720 of 2023 Umesh Kumar Khilo @ …. Petitioner Lalu

¶2

Mr.Bijaya Kumar Ragada, Adv.

¶3

-versus-

¶4

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

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶7

Order ORDER
No. 25.07.2023
F.I.R. Police Case No. and Sections
No. Dated Station Courts’ Name
20 04.02.2021 Sunabeda T.R. case Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
No.19 of 2021 the N.D.P.S. Act.
pending in the
court of
learned Addl.
Sessions
Judge-cum-
Special
Judge,Koraput

¶8

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶9

2 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶10

counsel for the State.

¶11

3 . The petitioner being in custody in connection with Sunabeda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021 corresponding to T.R.

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 27-Jul-2023 09:05:30

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

Case No.19 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Koraput 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.

¶17

4. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 04.02.2021, on getting information regarding illegal transportation of Ganja, the informant detained a Bolero vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR 08 E 7300 and one Eicher Vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD 02 A 3954. They found two persons in Bolero and four persons in Eicher vehicle who were the occupants including the drivers. On search they recovered nine numbers of bundles from Bolero each containing 5 Kg. 100 grams and 23 numbers of bundles from the Dala of the Eicher containing 5 Kg. 100 grams each, in total 162 Kg. 800 grams including the jerry bags. On being asked, the accused persons disclosed their identity but failed to produce any documents regarding authorization for transportation of such contraband Ganja.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no nexus in the alleged offence. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive of the informant. The basic ingredients are

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 27-Jul-2023 09:05:30

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

not at all attributed against the petitioner for the alleged offence. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 04.02.2021. He further submits that some of the co-accused who are similarly situated with the petitioner have already been released on bail by orders of this Court i.e. on 12.04.2022 in BLAPL No. 3193 of 2021, 21.09.2022 in BLAPL No. 5244 of 2022, 20.10.2022 in BLAPL No. 9476 of 2022 and 23.12.2022 in BLAPL No. 11400 of 2022.

¶24

6. 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. Though the charge sheet has been submitted trial has not yet been commenced. Further, there is less likelihood of completion of trial in the near future.

¶25

7 . Learned counsel for the State objects the bail prayer of the petitioner with the submission that after completion of interim bail period, the petitioner has not surrendered voluntarily for which N.B.W. was issued and he was arrested. Hence, he should not be released on bail.

¶26

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 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

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 27-Jul-2023 09:05:30

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

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:

¶32

"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."

¶33

9. 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

¶34

Signature Not Verified1

¶35

1 1981)3 SCC 671

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 27-Jul-2023 09:05:30

¶38

// 5 //

¶39

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.

¶40

10. 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

Signature Not Verified2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 27-Jul-2023 09:05:30

¶44

// 6 //

¶45

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

¶46

i. the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned P.S on every Sunday between 10 to 12 Noon.;

¶47

ii. He shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case after commencement of the trial;;

¶48

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

¶49

iv .he shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶50

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

¶51

12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶52

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶53

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Date: 27-Jul-2023 09:05:30

¶56

Page 6 of 6

Umesh Kumar Khilo @ Lalu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar Khilo @ Lalu 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

Balaram Sahu Vs Union Bank of India

Mamata Swain Vs Chief Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India

Ajit Kumar Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha

Mainak Chakraborty Vs Milan Developers and Builders, Bbsr

Sunderlal @ Sundarlal Nag @ Nepal Vs State of Odisha

Bibhisan Kumbar @ Sonu Vs State of Odisha