Jaya Khora Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.2325 of 2025

Jaya Khora

Jaya Khora ..…... Petitioner Mr. Digambar Sethi, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

13.05.2025

Order No.

FIR/ PR No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
0091	31.12.2019	Machhak und	T.R. Case No.01(B) of 2020 arising out of Machhakund P.S. Case No.91 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special	Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act

¶12

2

¶13

Judge, Koraput

¶14

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶16

The petitioner is in custody in connection with T.R. Case No.01(B) of 2020 arising out of Machhakund P.S. Case No.91 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Koraput, has filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶17

The prosecution story in brief is that on 31.12.2019 at 11.30 A.M., the informant Sri Subhrakanta Kumar Panda SI of police and his staff left PS in PS Bolero for Lamtaput area in order to perform day patrolling duty. While performing day patrolling duty near Kodrimaliput at 12.45 PM, they noticed from a distance that one white colour car was coming from Lamtaput side towards jeypore in high speed in a suspicious manner. They stopped the vehicle and checked the same. During checking and verification, they found 4 numbers of tinsel (jari) bags i.e. 02 bags loaded in the dicky of the car and 02 bags

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

3

¶20

loaded on the seat of the car behind the driver from which acute smell of ganja was coming out and there were three occupants inside the car including the driver. As there is reasonable chance of detection of suspected ganja, he detained the said vehicle along with the occupants at the spot after explaining them about the cause of their detention and intimated the fact to IIC, Machkund PS as his immediate authority. On weighing, the net quantity of Ganja came to 85 kgs 250 grams.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband ganja. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by the prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in custody since 31.12.2019. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶23

Page 3 of 7

¶24

4

¶25

Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar¹ , wherein it was held that the State and, where applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker sections of society and often lack access to competent legal assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)² , wherein the Court emphasized that incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata. It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in

¶27

1 (1981) 3 SCC 671.

¶28

2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.

¶29

Page 4 of 7

¶30

5

¶31

such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts irreparable harm—especially if the accused is ultimately acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are prioritized and concluded expeditiously.

¶32

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized is greater than commercial quantity weighing 85 kgs 250 grams. In such premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve for bail.

¶33

Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the petitioner’s custody, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be granted bail by the learned court in seisin over the matter. However, such release shall be conditioned upon stringent terms and conditions, as the learned court deems fit and just. The conditions are as follows:-

¶34

i. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case.

¶35

Page 5 of 7

¶36

6

¶37

ii. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail.

¶38

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶39

iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant 200 saplings each of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on Government land, community land, or private land in the possession of the Petitioner or his family members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying the land for plantation.

¶40

Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to cancellation of the bail.

¶41

The District Nursery/D.F.O. shall extend the helping hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner and the Revenue Authority shall assist the Petitioner in identifying the location for plantation of the saplings. If the land is not available, the Petitioner to approach the Revenue Authority for identifying the land for plantation and the Revenue Authority shall do the needful.

¶42

Page 6 of 7

¶43

7

¶44

The I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station in coordination with the local Forest Officer shall monitor; whether the Petitioner has planted the saplings or not.

¶45

It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local Police Station assuring that he shall maintain those plants for two years.

¶46