Allowed

Manindra Basu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Aug 2021BLAPL/3614/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa granted bail to the petitioner, who was in custody for alleged narcotic trafficking. The court concluded that the bar under section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply given the circumstances and imposed specific reporting and conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner be released on bail with conditions to report to the I.I.C. and not commit further offenses.

Manindra Basu Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.3614 of 2021

¶3

Manindra Basu

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Puspamitra Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha Opposite Party Mr. Deepak Ranjan Parida, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

ORDER

13.08.2021

Order No.

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

¶15

The petitioner being in custody in connection with Mudulipada P.S. Case No.45 of 2019 corresponding to T.R. Case No.82 of 2019 (A) on the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri running for alleged commission of offence under sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/27-A/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 with the allegation that that this Petitioner was involved in transportation of 164 kg 700 grams of ganja; he has been arrested in the case and is in custody since 11.04.2021. He further submits that this Petitioner has been arraigned in the case solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, namely, Ranjit Sikdar, who is none other than the owner of the said truck and as

¶17

per the prosecution case was then on the driver’s seat. He submits that the game plan of accused Ranjit in falsely implicating the persons instead of others to divert the attention of the investigation in proceeding in right

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

direction is not at all ruled out. He further submits that even if presence of this Petitioner in the vehicle is believed for a moment then also with the presence of the owner-cum-driver, the act of carriage of contraband ganja cannot be attributed to the Petitioner. In view of all these above, he contends that the bar under section 37 of the NDPS Act in so far as the Petitioner is concerned would not stand on the way of grant of bail when the Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and being a permanent resident of the District of Malkangiri; the scope for him to flee from justice does not arise as also here the question of tampering the evidence is not there as most of the witnesses are officials.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State submits that it is too premature a stage to take a view that the Petitioner has no knowledge about the keeping of the said contraband in the vehicle in question. He, however, submits that the material to connect the Petitioner is the statement of that co-accused, who is none other than the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and arrested at the spot. It is submitted that the disclosure of that accused being immediate; at this stage the statement cannot be viewed with suspicion and any game plan behind that is not inferable. .

¶21

Taking into account the submissions made; further keeping in view the materials on records as those stand against the petitioner with other surrounding circumstances including the period of detention of the petitioner in custody and 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:-

¶22

he will report before the I.I.C., Mudulipada P.S. on every Monday and Thursday in between 10 am to 02 pm for a period of one year;

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

will appear before the court in seisin of the case on each date of posting of the case till conclusion of trial; and

¶27

will not indulge in commission of similar type of offence. Violation of any of the above condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶28

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶30

(D. Dash)
Judge

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Manindra Basu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manindra Basu 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

Hnrudanand Sahoo Vs Sri Sri Ananta Gopal

Jhatu Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Pravat Jena Vs State of Odisha

Prafulla Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Jayant Das Vs State of Odisha

Abhaya Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha