High Court granted no interim bail but directed the trial Court to conclude the N.D.P.S. Act trial within six months. Petitioner allowed to renew bail plea if time limit expires.
Trial to conclude within six months; petitioner at liberty to renew bail prayer if not done within the period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.726 of 2021
Harendra Kumar …. Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha
…. Opp. Party
Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty (For the N.C.B.)
Order No.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO ORDER 09.08.2021
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the N.C.B.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with NCB (Narcotic Control Bureau) Crime No.02/NCB/BBSR/2017 corresponding to T.R. Case No.22 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offence under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar by order dated 15.12.2020.
// 2 //
As per order dated 03.08.2021, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge –cum– Additional Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar has submitted the status report in T.R. Case No.22 of 2018, which indicates that out of eight charge sheet witnesses, two witnesses have been examined till date and four witnesses, who are the officers of the N.C.B. are now posted outside the State.
Learned Special Counsel appearing for the N.C.B. submits that steps will be taken immediately to see that the witnesses appear before the learned trial Court at an earliest to give their evidence so that the trial of the case can be concluded early. He further submits that the petitioner has got one criminal antecedent which is also under N.D.P.S. Act and in that case, accusation is that the petitioner was possessing commercial quantity of ganja.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.09.2017 and only material available on record against the petitioner is the confessional statement of the co-accused before police.
Considering the available materials on record and the criminal antecedent against the petitioner, while not inclining to release the petitioner on bail but, taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody and the stage of trial, I direct the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.
A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court for compliance.
Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty, learned counsel for the N.C.B. shall intimate that one of the responsible Officer of the N.C.B. to appear before the learned trial Court by 19.08.2021 and receive summons in respect of the witnesses, who are posted outside and ensure their attendance on the date fixed.
Free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the N.C.B. for compliance. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge
Jagabandhu
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted given the petitioner's judicial custody duration and criminal antecedent.
How to expedite the trial pending against the petitioner considering the absence of NCB witnesses.
What period should the trial Court aim to conclude the trial within?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harendra Kumar
State of Odisha
S.K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
