IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1666 of 2026 Ramakrushna Sahu ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Dayanidhi Mishra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha .….... Opposite Party Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 23.04.2026 Order No. 01. F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 82 02.04.2024 Mohana G.R. Case No.43 of 2024, pending before the learned Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Gajapati 20(b)(ii)(C)/ 25/29 of the NDPS Act 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in Mohana P.S. Case No.82 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.43 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Sessons Judge-cum-Special Judge, Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Apr-2026 12:29:50 Signature Not Verified Gajapati, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 02.04.2024 at about 8.30 a.m. Mohana Police intercepted a Ford Figo car bearing registration No. OR-02-BJ-5252 and one tractor with trolley bearing registration no. OD-07-AA-6921 and on search, they recovered and seized 196 kg 800 grams of contraband article- ganja kept in 7 nos. of jerry bags from the said two vehicles. To be more specific, two jerry bags containing 60 kg 200 grams of ganja were recovered from the said car and five jerry bags containing 136 kg 600 grams of ganja were recovered from the dallah of the said tractor. The driver of the tractor and the occupant (present Petitioner) of the said car were arrested and forwarded to the court on 03.04.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no direct evidence against the present Petitioner with regard to his involvement in the alleged crime. The Petitioner has been entangled in this case on suspicion basing an extra judicial confession made by him. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2024. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Page 3 of 5 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble 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. vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, wherein the Hon'ble 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." 7. 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 Bihar 1wherein it has been held 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 1 (1981) 3SCC 671 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. 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. 8. 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, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily. 9. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is alleged to be involved in the commission of a heinous offence 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 of murder. Accordingly, he strongly opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 10. Without going into the merit of the case and based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned Court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that:- i. the Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each date of posting of the case; ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; and iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 11. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 12. Issue urgent certified copy of this Order as per Rules. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun