Allowed

Mangaldas Disari v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Jul 2023BLAPL/7032/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Cuttack directed the lower court to release the petitioner, detained under the NDPS Act for over three years, on bail citing delayed trial and fundamental rights to speedy trial, while imposing stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on stringent conditions including appearance at hearings and avoidance of tampering with evidence.

Mangaldas Disari Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.7032 of 2023

¶3

Mangaladas Disari …. Petitioner Mr.J.K.Panda, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

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

¶6

CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶7

Order ORDER
No. 14.07.2023
Dated Police Case No. Sections
F.I.R.
Station and Courts’
No.
Name
13 20.01.2020 Orkel T.R.Case Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
No. 18 of N.D.P.S. Act.
2020 arising
out of Orkel
P.S. Case
No.13 of
2020
pending in
the Court of
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge-Cum-
Special
Judge,
Malkangiri.

¶8

Signature Not Verified

¶9

Page 1 of 6

¶10

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:37

¶11

// 2 //

¶12

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

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

¶14

3 . The petitioner being in custody in connection with Orkel P.S. Case No. 13 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.18 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Additional 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.

¶15

4. It is alleged in the FIR that while the S.I. of Police of Orkel P.S. along with his staff was performing evening patrolling as well as blocking duty on the road connecting to M.V.51 and Surlokonda Hata, near village M.V.51, found the petitioner along with others were transporting contraband ‘ganja’ in the guise of Kaudia. They apprehended the present petitioner and other co-accused. They recovered 40 Kgs.300 gms. of contraband ‘ganja’ from the exclusive and conscious possession of the present petitioner as per weighment chart under Annexure-4 and forwarded him to the jail custody.

¶16

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration since

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:37

¶20

// 3 //

¶21

20.01.2020 which is more than three years. Although the trial has been commenced, only five witnesses have been examined, out of forty witnesses. There is less likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In addition,, four coaccused who are similarly situated with the petitioner have already been released on bail by orders of this Court on 03.01.2021 in BLAPL No. 11062 of 2022, 15.05.2023 in BLAPL No.1488 of 2023, 03.05.2023 in BLAPL No.2041 of 2023 and 03.05.2023 in BLAPL No. 1267 of 2023 respectively.

¶22

6 . Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner. However, he agrees to the factum of delayed trial and his detention in Police custody over three years.

¶23

7. 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:

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:37

¶27

// 4 //

¶28

"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."

¶29

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 held 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

¶30

1 1981)3 SCC 671

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:37

¶34

// 5 //

¶35

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.

¶36

The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:37

¶43

// 6 //

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶49

¶50

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Page 6 of 6

¶53

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:37

Mangaldas Disari v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangaldas Disari 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

Rabindra Swain Vs the Branch Manager, Hdb Financial Services Co. Ltd. Bbsr

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Himansu Sahu @ Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Dhanji Ray Vs State of Odisha

Samir Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Reshma Behera Vs State of Odisha