Allowed

Samir Majhi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Jul 2023BLAPL/7068/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa granted bail to the petitioner charged under the NDPS Act. The Court applied Section 439 CrPC, emphasizing that detention for over three years without trial violated the fundamental right to a speedy trial, noting that co-accused had already been released.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on stringent terms: appearance in court, no further criminal offences, and no tampering with prosecution evidence.

Samir Majhi Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.7068 of 2022

¶3

Samir Majhi

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Ms. S.K.Nayak, Adv. along with Mr.Devashis Panda, Advocate & Ms.Ayushi Meheta, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

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

¶8

CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 14.07.2023
Dated Police Case No. Sections
F.I.R.
Station and Courts’
No.
Name
38 031.05.2020 Gudari T.R. case Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
No.06 of N.D.P.S. Act.
2020 arising
out of
Gudari P.S.
Case No. 38
of 2020
pending in
the court of
learned
Special
Judge-cum
Addl.
Sessions
Judge,
Gunupur

¶9

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:34

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

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

¶15

3 . The petitioner being in custody in connection with Gudari P.S.Case No.38 of 2020 corresponding to T.R.Case No.6 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Gunupur, 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.

¶16

4 . It is alleged in the FIR that on 31.05.2020 at about 9.30 A.M. the S.I. of Police Gudari P.S. and staff were performing day patrolling in village Kadadma and its adjoining area. On that day at about 4.35 P.M. acting upon tip off, they conducted raid on the spot i.e. in the jungle near Khairaguda and found the petitioner along with others were engaged in packing and storing contraband ‘ganja’ in a cashew nut field. On seeing the police personnel, the persons engaged in packing the contraband ‘ganja’ fled away from the spot. The raiding team nabbed one of them, who is the present petitioner. On search they recovered twelve white colour jarry bags and one green colour jarri bag containing ‘Ganja’ weighing about 1164 Kg. 929 grams in toto along with motor cycles from the spot.

¶17

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has already spent in custody since 31.05.2020 which is more than three years and trial has not yet been commenced. Further, there is less likelihood of completion of trial in the

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:34

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

near future. Additionally, some of the co-accused who are similarly situated with the petitioner have already been released on bail by order of this Court on 08.04.2021 in BLAPL No. 6982 of 2020, on 29.04.2022 in BLAPL No. 7032 of 2021, on 09.06.2021 in BLAPL No. 8284 of 2020 and on 09.06.2021 in BLAPL No. 9455 of 2020.

¶23

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

¶24

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:

¶25

"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."

¶26

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

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:34

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

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 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

10 . Considering the submissions made, the factum of release of the co-accused persons and detention of the petitioner without

¶34

1 1981)3 SCC 671 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:34

¶38

// 5 //

¶39

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:

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶45

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge

¶46

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Page 5 of 5

¶49

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2023 18:02:34

Samir Majhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Majhi 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

Mangaldas Disari Vs State of Odisha

Reshma Behera Vs State of Odisha