Disposed

Rajul@Bihari Mandal v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC3 Aug 2016BLAPL/3355/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in custody under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act applied for bail twice. Bench, noting previous bail rejection and difficulty in trial completion, directed trial court to finish trial within three months and ordered disclosure officer to ensure investigating officer's immediate appearance for examination to prevent delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to complete trial within three months; directed Additional Standing Counsel to ensure immediate appearance of investigating officer for examination.

05. 03.08.2016 Petitioner having been in custody in Spl. Case No.5/21 of 2015-13 corresponding to Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.78 of 2013 pending in the Cou rt of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Keonjhar registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act has filed th is application for his release on bail. On earlier occasion, the prayer for bail of the petit ioner having been rejected in BLAPL No.16071 of 2013, he has now again applied for bail.

Considering the submission as also viewing the materials on record while being not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, it is observed that the trial court would do we ll to complete the trial of the case within a period of three months from the date of communic ation of this order.

It is submitted at the Bar that the trial awaits for conclusion only for non- attendance of the investigating officer of the case for his examination as the witness on beha lf of the prosecution and it is submitted that in spite of several intimation, he is avoiding to come to the witness box. If this is so, the learned Additional Standing Counsel is directed to impart necessary instruction to all concern for the said purpose for immediate appearance of the investigating officer for his examination. He is also directed to pass the information to the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case to correspond with the said investigating offic er by informing him the date of his appearance so that there would be no further delay in the matter and in the event of his non-appearance to intimate the higher authority for suitable ac tion as deemed fit and proper.

Rajul@Bihari Mandal v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajul@Bihari Mandal v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayumuddin Saha Vs Champabati Devi

Laxmidhar Mohanty Vs Hata Mohanty

Pramod Ku.Pattnaik Vs Padmalaya Mohanty

Kanhu Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Sujata Bisoyi Vs State of Orissa

Kalia@Durga@Jagdish Pradhan Vs State of Orissa