Gajendra Singh vs Union Of India

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioner being in custody in connection with NCB Crime No.01/NCB/BBSR/2020 No.166 of 2021 corresponding to T.R. No.28 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the N.D.P.S. Act, Khurda, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the N.D.P.S Act, has filed this petition for his release on interim bail.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 05.06.2020 and due to his incarceration in custody for long period, his family members are suffering a lot. He further contends that only two persons have been examined out of seven prosecution witnesses.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the 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. vrs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1979 AIR 1360, wherein the Supreme Court has iterated that:

"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."

He further argues that the period of long incarceration suffered, which entitle the Petitioner for grant of interim 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 Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671, wherein it has been stated 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, the application of the said NDPS Rule is wholly inadvisable. 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.

The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023  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.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the present Petitioner is involved in another case vide Sessions Case No.6 of 2021 (Crime No.66/2020 of Etcherla Police Station). On the other hand, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been acquitted by the court of learned I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in the aforesaid case. He also produces a copy of the judgment relating to the above noted case.

Be that as it may, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the decisions cited above, this Court directs that the Petitioner be released on interim bail for a period of one month reckoning from the date of his release by the court in seisin over the matter by furnishing two local solvent sureties each for the like amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the satisfaction of the learned court in  seisin over the matter with further conditions that:

I. the Petitioner shall appear before the nearest local Police Station on every Monday between 10.00A.M. to 1.00P.M.;

II. the Petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities in future;

III. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

IV. the Petitioner shall surrender before the court in seisin over the matter on or before the exact date of completion of interim bail

Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the interim bail.

This I.A is, accordingly, disposed of.

BLAPL NO.1936 OF 2024

List this matter on 25th June, 2024.

..…………………………..