Allowed

Ranjan Padal v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC2 Aug 2017BLAPL/6967/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to a petitioner under Section 20 of the NDPS Act under Section 439 Cr.P.C., finding no direct material showing exclusive possession of contraband, noting the petitioner is local with no flight risk, and directing bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each for like amount, subject to appearance and non-tampering conditions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel on the applic ation under section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for bail for the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(c of N.D.P.S. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been apprehended fa lsely by suspecting him to have carried the Ganja in question. He further submits that the F.I .R. clearly shows that the petitioner along with co-accused persons were coming with the Ganja , but seeing the police party they fled away and by chasing, the police personnel caught hold of the present petitioner. So, he submits that there is no seizure of any Ganja from the exclu sive conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed in the meantime, for which lenient view may be taken to release the petitioner on bail. Learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, regard bein g had to the facts and circumstances of the case including the F.I.R. and seizure list, there being no direct material to show the seizure of 22 K.Gs. of Ganja from the exclusive conscious possession of the present petitioner, fact that charge sheet has been submitted and the petit ioner is a local person having no chance of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evide nce, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fif ty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkanagiri in C.T. Case No.104 of 2016 with the conditions that (i) he shall appear before the court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting; (ii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; and (iii) he h all not commit any offence while on bail.

Ranjan Padal v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Padal 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

Seema Rekha Bhoi Vs State of Orissa

Group Captain Girish Ch.Mohanty Vs Union of India

Mihira Ray Vs Dist.Agriculture Officer-Cum-Krushi Sahayak

Ramesh Ch.Panda Vs State of Orissa

Kashinath Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Tofan Sahu Vs State of Orissa