Orissa High Court
Loknath Harijan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 14 May, 2024
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 72 of 2024
Loknath Harijan .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Padhy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Pattnaik, AGA
BLAPL No. 2971 of 2024
Krushna Pangi ... Petitioner
Mr. M. Padhy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
14.05.2024 Order No.
08. 1. Since both the BLAPLs relate to the same P.S. (Maithili P.S. Case No.158 of 2022), on the consent of the Parties, they are heard together and disposed of by common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPLs, no other bail application of the Petitioners are pending in any other Court, relating to the aforesaid P.S. Case.
Page 1 of 54. The Petitioners are accused in connection with G.R. Case No.117 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Malkangiri, Dist-Malkangiri, arising out of Maithili P.S. Case No.158 of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act.
5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri by orders dated 14.11.2023 & 22.03.2024 in the aforementioned cases respectively, the present BLAPLs have been filed.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner (Loknath Harijan) in BLAPL No.72 of 2024 had earlier moved this Court in BLAPL No.10459 of 2022 which was rejected by order dated 15.11.2022 and his subsequent bail application was withdrawn by order dated 09.10.2023 in BLAPL No.12086 of 2022.
7. The Petitioner (Krushna Pangi) in BLAPL No.2971 of 2024 was before this Court in BLAPL No.8332 of 2022 which was rejected by order dated 14.09.2022 and his subsequent bail application was withdrawn by order dated 05.03.2024 in BLAPL No.4915 of 2023.
8. The allegation against the Petitioners that they were taken into custody on 03.08.2022 on the accusation of being involved in the transportation of contraband to the tune of 1018Kgs 820gms (ganja) and charge sheet is stated to have been filed on 28.01.2023.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners primarily seeks release on the ground of procrastination of trial.
10. To test the veracity of the same, a report was called for from the learned Court in seisin regarding the stage of trial.
Page 2 of 511. The report dated 09.05.2024 of the learned Court in seisin reads as under:-
xxx xxx xxx "Respectfully, with reference to the subject cited above, I am to submit that out of 19 (nineteen) charge sheeted witnesses none of the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Now the case stands posted to 17.05.2024 for hearing."
xxx xxx xxx
12. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail inter alia relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State by the Inspector of Police vs. B. Ramu in SLP(Crl.) No(s).8137 of 2022 and submits that since charge sheet has been filed, prima facie case is well made out against the Petitioners. Hence, they ought not to be released on bail.
13. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that mere delay in trial cannot be a ground for release.
14. The submission made by the learned counsel for the State is well taken that delay in trial cannot be universally applicable as a ground for release on bail but at the same time this Court cannot shut its eyes to the sacred right of the under trial prisoners for speedy trial in the background of their rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
15. This Court is conscious on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vrs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673 wherein the Apex Court has categorically laid down that in cases under the NDPS Act as a departure from the rule, grant of bail is an exception.
16. The right of an accused for speedy trial has engaged the attention of the Apex Court in various judgments right from the Page 3 of 5 celebrated case of Hussainara Khatoon & others vrs. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 and in its latest pronouncement in the case of Rabi Prakash vrs. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC Online SC 1109, the Apex Court had balanced the inter se rights of the accused and rigours of the statute.
17. Taking note of the same and keeping in view the report of the learned Court in seisin that notwithstanding that the Petitioners are in custody since 03.08.2022 and none of the 19 charge sheeted witnesses have been examined by the Prosecution, this Court is left with no other alternative but to direct release of the Petitioners on bail more so in view of the fact that the Petitioner (Krushna Pangi) in BLAPL No.2971 of 2024 is the first offender and the Petitioner (Loknath Harijan) BLAPL No.72 of 2024 is cited as an accused in Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.134 of 2018 in which he has been released on bail.
18. The final form and the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners regarding criminal antecedent of the Petitioner (Loknath Harijan) in BLAPL No.72 of 2024 is taken on record.
19. Before releasing, learned Court in seisin is requested to verify as to whether the Petitioner (Loknath Harijan) in BLAPL No.72 of 2024 has any criminal antecedent than the one noted above and the Petitioner (Krushna Pangi) in BLAPL No.2971 of 2024 has any criminal antecedent except the present case. If it comes to the fore that such submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is found to be incorrect, this order shall not be given effect to.
20. Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once every month on such Page 4 of 5 date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the learned Court in seisin.
21. Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of.
22. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Ayesha Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYESHA ROUT
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 15-May-2024 18:17:59
Page 5 of 5