Allowed

Md. Instiyak Ansari v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Aug 2021BLAPL/101/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to a petitioner accused of drug offenses under the NDPS Act. The court noted the seizure list did not explicitly attribute possession to him despite his presence in the vehicle. Dismissing the State's opposition, the court granted bail with specific conditions including periodic reporting to police and the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with conditions: personal appearance before trial court, affidavit of address, weekly appearance before local police in Bihar, and prohibition from similar activities.

Md. Instiyak Ansari Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.101 of 2020

¶3

Md. Instiyak Ansari @ Md. Istiyak …. Petitioner Ansari

¶4

Mr.N.Lenka, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party Mr. Deepak Ranjan Parida, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

ORDER 06.08.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶14

This is the second journey of the Petitioner, who is in

¶15

custody in connection with Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.119 of 2018 corresponding to T.R. Case No.41 of 2018 pending on

¶16

the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput, running for the alleged commission of offence under section 20 (b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, in filing this application under section 439, Cr.P.C., for his release on bail.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that merely

¶20

because this Petitioner was found travelling in the vehicle with the driver and another at the time of interception and recovery of ganja of 79 kgs and 880 grams; he has been arraigned in the case and is in custody since 24.7.2018. He further submits that as the seizure list and other documents

¶21

reveal the bags containing ganja have been recovered from the dickey of the vehicle and this Petitioner had no access to the same and it is the driver Amit Sharma at whose instance the

¶22

recovery of ganja from the dickey has been effected followed by its seizure. Drawing the attention of the court to the seizure list concerning the contraband ganja, he submits that for the above reason, the police has rightly indicated therein that he seized the ganja from the possession of accused Amit Sharma as in the normal course, the knowledge of this Petitioner as to

¶23

the keeping of said ganja in the dickey is not inferable and for that, no such material on record has also been collected. He, therefore, submits that in so far as this Petitioner is concerned, in the above facts and circumstances as available from the

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

materials on record, the bar under section 37 of the NDPS Act would not stand on the way.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. While

¶28

not disputing the position that in the seizure list relating to the contraband ganja, this Petitioner being not in clear terms so attributed with the possession of the ganja, his name does not find so placed; he however contends that for the presence of the Petitioner in the vehicle when recovery of commercial quantity of ganja has been made, the Petitioner cannot wriggle out of his liability and thus the bar under section 37 of the Act

¶29

stands as an impediment.

¶30

Considering the submissions made; further keeping in view the materials as have been gathered, with the surrounding circumstances including the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody; I am inclined to reconsider the

¶31

prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail on such terms

¶32

and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court in seisin of the case with further conditions that:-

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

// 4 //

¶35

(a) he will appear in person before the court in seisin of the case on each and every date of posting of the case till conclusion of the trial;

¶36

(b) he shall furnish his present address along with the contact mobile numbers by way of affidavit and in case of and change, shall intimate the same in that way;

¶37

¶38

jurisdiction Village-Rajdevpur, Baruni in the district of Begusarai in Bihar comes on every Monday in between 10.00

¶39

am to 2.00 pm till conclusion of the trial; and

¶40

(d) shall not indulge himself in any similar type of activity.

¶41

Violation of any of the condition(s) shall entail

¶42

cancellation of bail.

¶43

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶44

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶45

(D.Dash) Judge

¶46

Basu

¶47

Page 4 of 4

Md. Instiyak Ansari v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Instiyak Ansari v. State of Odisha

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

Uttam Guru Vs State of Odisha

Bibhuti Mandal @ Bibhuti Bhusan Mandal Vs State of Odisha

K. Goutam Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Chandra Jena @ Bapi Vs State of Odisha

Babuna @ Kartik Das Vs State of Odisha