Allowed

Trinath Kendu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 May 2024BLAPL/2220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed a bail petition filed by Trinath Kendu, accused in a narcotics case (Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of NDPS Act), after noting he had been in custody since August 2020 (over three years). Drawing on Supreme Court precedents regarding the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, the court ordered the trial judge to release him on stringent bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The Petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to stringent conditions including personal appearance on dates and prohibitions against criminal activities and tampering with evidence.

Trinath Kendu Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.2220 of 2024

¶3

Trinath Kendu ….

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv.

¶6

Mr. D.Sethi

¶7

-versus-

¶8

State of Odisha

¶9

…. Opposite Party Represented By ASC Mr. I. Mohanty

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶12

Order ORDER No. 01.05.2024

¶13

F.I.R.	Dated	Police	Case No. and Courts’	Sections
No.		Station	Name
219	21.08.2020	Jeypore Town	P.S. Case No.219 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.52 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge- Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore	Section 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶14

¶15

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶16

2 . Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned

¶17

counsel for the State.

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

3 . The Petitioner being in custody in connection with P.S. Case No.219 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case no.52 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Koraput, Jeypore registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29 of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4 . It is alleged in the FIR that on the Police received an information regarding transportation of contraband ‘Ganja’ in a TATA ACE Vehicle bearing registration No.OD-10-H-2557 on NH 326 from Boipariguda to jeypore Town. Thereafter, they proceeded to the aforesaid place and after a while at about 10:00 A.M, they found the said vehicle was coming from Boipariguda side being escorted by one person. Police detained the vehicle and found two occupants were there, on frantically search, recovered 42 number of gunny bags containing 1046 Kgs. of contraband ‘Ganja’.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has no knowledge about transportation of the ‘Ganja’. He further submits that the Petitioner is languishing in custody since 21.08.2020, which is more than three years. 6 . Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner.

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

7. The 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 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 several judgments including that of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar¹ wherein it has

¶27

1 1981)3 SCC 671

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

// 4 //

¶30

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.

¶31

9 . The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @

¶32

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,

¶33

2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

// 5 //

¶36

where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.

¶37

10 . Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, 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:

¶38

i. the Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities in future; iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

¶39

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

¶40

11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶41

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶42

Judge

¶43

Sumitra

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Odisha, Cuttack Date: 02-May-2024 18:01:42

¶46

Page 5 of 5

Trinath Kendu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trinath Kendu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gourang Charan Maharaj Vs State of Orissa

Dusmanta Kumar Panda Vs Union Bank of India, Berhampur

Narendra Nath Nayak @ Narendra Nath Naik Vs State of Odisha

New India Assurance Vs Chairperson,Pla

Manoj Kumar Mahapatra Vs Regional Manager, Rbi, Bbsr

Sukra Kabasi Vs State of Odisha