Bishnu @ Bhisma Khara Vs State of Odisha

F.I.R. No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
72	4.03.2023	Orkel	Spl. G.R. Case No.68 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri	Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS ACT

¶14

¶15

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The petitioner being in custody in connection with Spl. G.R. Case No.68 of 2023 arising out of Orkel P.S. Case No.72

¶18

of 2023, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge-

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 15:47:58

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS ACT, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

¶23

The brief fact of the case is that the SI of the police of the Orkel P.S. lodged a written report alleging that some persons were illegally transporting the huge quantity of ganja from Malkanagiri area to other place. They ware staging the same inside the jungle and waiting for the vehicle there. The informant along with his staff immediately proceeded to the spot. On seeing them, the accused persons fled from the spot. However, they were able to apprehend other two co-accused persons. But, another one named Samara Madkami fled from the spot. The accused persons who were arrested from the spot disclosed the name of the present Petitioner from whom they had procured the ganja. Thereafter, the informant maintaining the official formalities and procedure seized 149 kg of the ganja from the spot in presence of the witnesses. Hence, this case.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2023. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed.

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 15:47:58

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, continued incarceration of the petitioner for an extended period without conclusion of trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of his fundamental rights. The importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs Home Secretary, State of

¶29

Bihar , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has iterated that:

¶30

"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."

¶31

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

¶32

1 (1981) 3SCC 671

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 15:47:58

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly in a country like ours, where a significant majority of the accused belong to economically and socially disadvantaged sections of society and often lack awareness of legal rights or access to competent legal assistance, the right to a speedy trial assumes even greater importance. While in a given case, an accused person's express demand for a speedy trial may weigh in their favour, the absence of such a demand cannot be used to deny or dilute their right. An accused cannot be deprived of the protection guaranteed under the right to a speedy trial merely because they did not expressly assert or insist upon it.

¶37

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,

¶38

2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 15:47:58

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that the quantity of ganja seized is clearly above the commercial quantity prescribed under the Act which bars granting of bail.

¶44

Without delving into the intricacies of the case or the merits of the allegations, and in light of the facts and circumstances at hand, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be granted bail by the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case. However, such release shall be conditioned upon stringent terms and conditions, as the learned court deems fit and just with further condition that:-

¶45

i. The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail and appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the matter. ii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶46

iii. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon (in between the month of July and August, 2025), shall plant 100 saplings 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 land for the plantation.

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 15:47:58

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

Any violation of the above conditions shall result in the cancellation of bail.

¶51

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 as required.

¶52

It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants for a period of two years.

¶53