Allowed

Pravat Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Aug 2021BLAPL/2525/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa granted bail to a truck driver detained for alleged narcotics transportation. The Court directed release on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., holding that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not bar bail for a driver acting under employer's direction, subject to specific reporting and conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with conditions: personal appearance without fail, no criminal activity, and weekly reporting at IIC, R.Udaygiri P.S. for six months.

Pravat Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL NO.2525 OF 2021

¶3

Pravat Kumar Jena

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Dushmanta Sahoo, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party Mr. Soubhagya Ketan Nayak, AGA

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

ORDER 18.08.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrids arrangement (virtual/ physical) mode.

¶15

The Petitioner being in custody since 02.05.2019 by filing this successive application in connection with Mohana P.S. Case No.76 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.36 of 2019 on the file of learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Gajpati-Parlakhemundi, running for alleged commission of offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, has filed this application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the allegation that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle which was found to be carrying 78 Kgs. of ganja; he has been in custody since 02.05.2019. It is further submitted that this Petitioner being engaged by the owner of the Truck was carrying out his duty and in course of employment as directed was as such in

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

the vehicle at the time of interception. He further submits that besides this Petitioner, other persons being found to be travelling; they have been arraigned as accused persons in the case and materials on record have come to show that the ganja was ultimately going to the owner of the vehicle namely, Gyana Ranjan Mallick for onward transportation beyond the State. It is submitted that in spite of detention of the Petitioner since 02.05.2019, the trial has not made substantial progress and the Petitioner being a poor driver besides him, the suffering of his family members have now gone beyond the tolerance level. According to him, in the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, the bar contained under Section-37 of the NDPS Act in so far as this Petitioner is concerned, does not stand on the way for grant of bail to the Petitioner. He, therefore, urges for grant of bail to the Petitioner, since there is no scope on the part of the Petitioner to flee from justice and tamper the evidence.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate in view of the earlier rejection of the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner opposes the move. According to him, it would only stand to be decided in the trial as to whether this Petitioner was having the knowledge as to said transportation of ganja. He however does not dispute the position that this Petitioner has no prior involvement in such type of case as a driver of any vehicle or otherwise.

¶21

Taking into account the submissions made; further keeping in view the materials on records as those stand against

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

the Petitioner with other surrounding circumstances including the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody and on going through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge; in the absence of any such impediment; it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court is seisin of the case with further conditions that:-

¶25

he will appear in person before the Court in seisin of the case on each date of posting of the case without fail; and

¶26

will not indulge himself in any criminal activity; and

¶27

will report before the IIC, R.Udaygiri P.S. every Monday in between 10 am to 2 pm for a period of next six months.

¶28

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 7. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶29

(D. Dash), Judge.

¶30

Narayan

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Pravat Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravat Kumar Jena 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

Bijaya Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Das @ Bhimsen Singh Vs State of Odisha

Ranvir Tandan Vs State of Odisha

Sk. Nasir Mohammed Vs State of Odisha

Jayamitra Majhi @ Mantu Vs State of Odisha

Arun Behera Vs State of Odisha