Allowed

Raj @ Shivraj Duria v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC30 Jan 2024BLAPL/603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition was filed by a petitioner accused of contraband ganja carriage under the NDPS Act. After hearing submissions regarding incidental delays and fundamental rights, the court granted bail for Rs. 1,00,000 on strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail furnished by property surety of Rs. 1,00,000 and two solvent sureties for like amount.

Raj @ Shivraj Duria Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 603 of 2024

¶2

Raj @ Shivraj Duria

¶3

..…... Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

………. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. D. Mund, AGA

¶9

CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶10

ORDER
30.01.2024
Order No.
01.
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Station and
Courts’
Name
66 27.07.2020 Semiliguda T.R. Case Section
No.43 of 20(b)(ii)(C)/29
2020 of the NDPS
pending in Act.
the court
of learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge-
Signature Not Verified cum-
Digitally Signed Special
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication Judge,
Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack
Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04
Koraput

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04

¶13

¶14

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶16

The Petitioner being in custody in Semiliguda P.S. Case No.66 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.43 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

¶17

It is alleged that the petitioner along with nine other persons were carrying contraband ganja in a Max Pickup vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-10-H-1074 with an intent to handover the same to another vehicle i.e. Eicher vehicle bearing Regd. No.HR-55R-3106 stranded in an isolated place on the road. At that time, the police having received reliable information stopped the vehicle, but all the occupants of the vehicles fled from the spot. The Police after observing all formalities of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed search and seizure as enshrined in the NDPS Act Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack r ecovered and seized 921 Kg. of contraband ‘ganja’ and Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04 registered the case and took up investigation.

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

¶20

Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The Petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 20.08.2020. Some co-accused persons who are similarly situated with the Petitioner have already been released on bail vide order dated 22.06.2022 passed in BLAPL No.5249 of 2022, 03.02.2021 in BLAPL No.6001 of 2020 and 16.02.2022 in BLAPL No.7336 of 2021.

¶21

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:

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04

¶24

"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

¶25

¶26

administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial."

¶27

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. 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.

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04

¶30

1 (1981) 3SCC 671

¶31

¶32

The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim

¶33

@ 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.

¶34

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner.

¶35

Let the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing of property surety of Rs.1,00,000/(rupees one lakh only) along with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper with further

¶36

conditions that:

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04

¶39