Allowed

Nimai Majumdar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Jul 2023BLAPL/6501/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding an NDPS Act offence, the High Court of Orissa, citing violations of the right to a speedy trial due to over three years of detention without trial, directed the session court to release the petitioner on bail with stringent conditions. The court prioritized constitutional rights over the doctrine of special laws in this matter.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail by the court in seisin on stringent conditions including mandatory appearance and prohibitions on committing new offences or tampering with evidence.

Nimai Majumdar Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.6501 of 2023

¶3

…. Nimat Majumdar

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Deepak Ku. sahoo Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

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

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶10

Order ORDER
No. 20.07.2023
Dated Police Case No. and Sections
F.I.R.
Station Courts’
No.
Name
107 31.08.2020 Kalimela T.R. case Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
No.89 of N.D.P.S. Act.
2020pending
in the court
of learned
Sessions
Judge cum
Special
Judge,
Malkanagiri

¶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

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 05-Aug-2023 18:31:48

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

3 . The petitioner being in custody in connection with Kalimela P.S.Case No.107 of 2020 corresponding to T.R.Case No.89 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Malkanagiri, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

¶18

4 . It is alleged in the FIR that on 02.09.2020, during Police patrolling, Kalimela Police detained six accused persons with a car in a maoist area at night hours. On search, they recovered and seized contraband ‘ganja’ weighing about 255 kg and 800 grams. Out of six accused persons two are from Maharashtra and others are from the local area. Police suspected them of transporting ‘ganja and arrested them by lodging the F.I.R..

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has already spent in custody since 02.09.2020 which is more than three years and trial has not yet been commenced. Further, there is less likelihood of completion of trial in the near future.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 05-Aug-2023 18:31:48

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

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 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."

¶28

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

¶29

1 1981)3 SCC 671

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 05-Aug-2023 18:31:48

¶33

// 4 //

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

10 . Without going into the merit of the matter and considering the submissions made and detention of the petitioner without being trial, 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:

¶37

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

¶38

2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 05-Aug-2023 18:31:48

¶42

// 5 //

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶47

¶48

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Page 5 of 5

¶51

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 05-Aug-2023 18:31:48

Nimai Majumdar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimai Majumdar 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

Bharati Barik Vs State and Ors.

Sebil Elanjimpally Vs State of Odisha

Jogeswar Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Badingi Chanti Vs State of Odisha

Sasmita Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Mamata Nayak @ Rajashree Sahoo Vs Abhilash Acharya, B.M., L.I.C., of India