Paramesh Goswami v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.3497 of 2022 Paramesh Goswami ....

Petitioner Mr. J.K. Panda, Advocate -versusState of Odisha .... Opposite Party Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

29.04.2022 Order No.

01.

1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner being in custody in Mathili P.S. Case No.141 of 2019 corresponding to T.R. Case No.121 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Malkangiri for the commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 27-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for bail.

4. The prosecution case, as narrated in the FIR, is that on 05.10.2020, on getting information regarding illegal transportation of contraband ganja, the police party waited on NH-326 near Baladiaguda and found one four wheeler vehicle coming towards Mathili from Pangam. Thereafter, they caught the accused persons and seized ganja amounting to 30 kg and 500 grams from the offending vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2020 and he has been falsely implicated in the

// 2 // present case. The petitioner has no knowledge about transportation of ganja in the offending vehicle. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to abide the terms and conditions imposed on him in case he is released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has already spent in custody for about more than one and 1⁄2 year and trial has not yet been commenced. The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again, has expressed displeasure on the delay of trial of the undertrial prisoners and their sufferings due to such delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar,1 observed that "speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right in India; it is implicit in a broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution". It is pertinent to mention that certain provisions of the Cr.P.C. impose a statutory obligation upon the courts to proceed the trial "expeditiously" so that the case could be disposed of without inordinate delay. The speedy trial of offences is a desirable goal because long delay can defeat justice.

There is a common proverb - 'delay defeats justice'. Hence, it is said that speedy justice is the essence of an organized society and the cases should be decided as early as possible. The present case fails to confirm to the aforesaid stand as articulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, facts of the case and the period of detention, the BLAPL is allowed.

1 (1980) 1 SCC 81

// 3 //

9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that:- i. he shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case;

ii. he shall not indulge in any kind of criminal activity during bail period and shall not tamper with the evidence of prosecution witnesses in any manner.

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

11. The BLAPL is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (S.K. Panigrahi) Judge pcd