Dismissed

Iswabandhu Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Dec 2021CRLMC/1466/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five criminal matters regarding default bail for drug trafficking accused were heard together. The court held that local police jurisdictions retained authority to investigate and submit charge sheets within statutory limits even after STF inspectors lodged FIRs, thus rejecting petitions for default bail.

What did the court decide?

The prayers for being released on default bail were dismissed.

Iswabandhu Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC NOs. 1675,1912,1466,1425,1423 OF 2021

¶3

( Applications under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 read with Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act ).

¶4

In CRLMC No.1675 of 2021

¶5

Dharmjit Sharma @ Chacha

¶6

… Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha … Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Padhy,
Advocate
- versus-
For Opposite Party : Mr.P.Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
In CRLMC No.1912 of 2021

¶7

Kanheya Singh

¶8

versus-

¶9

State of Odisha … Opposite Party

¶10

Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

¶11

Page 1 of 13

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Padhy, Advocate

¶13

versus-

¶14

For Opposite Party : Mr.P.Tripathy Addl. Standing Counsel

¶15

In CRLMC No.1466 of 2021

¶16

Iswabandhu Nayak

¶17

¶18

Sundarlal Nag @ Nepal
… Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha … Opposite Party

¶19

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 2 of 13

¶20

Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Padhy, Advocate

¶22

versus-

¶23

For Opposite Party : Mr.P.Tripathy Addl. Standing Counsel

¶24

In CRLMC No.1423 of 2021

¶25

Lalan Pandit
… Petitioner
- versus-
State of Odisha … Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Padhy,
Advocate
- versus-
For Opposite Party : Mr.P.Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel

¶26

-------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:

¶27

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

11.12.2021.

¶30

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 3 of 13

¶31

Sashikanta Mishra,J . In all these applications filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners, similar facts and identical questions of law are involved. Therefore, all the five cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In all these cases, the Petitioners have prayed for being enlarged on default bail on the ground of non-submission of charge sheet by Special Task Force, CID,CB (in short, “STF”), Bhubaneswar within the stipulated time.

¶32

Facts:

¶33

In CRLMC No.1675 of 2021

¶34

In this case the Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case No.44/2020 corresponding to Nandapur P.S. Case No.54/2020 in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Koraput, for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. It is alleged that on 27^th July, 2020 upon information received regarding illegal transportation of Ganja in a Tractor being escorted by a Hero Honda Motor Cycle, the Inspector of Police, STF lodged an F.I.R. before Nandapur P.S. with request to do the needful. Basing on such F.I.R., the case was registered and investigation was taken up, in course of which the accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Upon completion of the investigation, the I.O. has submitted charge sheet in the case. It was contended before the learned court below on behalf of the

¶35

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 4 of 13

¶36

accused that as the STF had not submitted charge sheet in the case, the accused persons are entitled to be released on bail. Such application came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 1^st September, 2021.

¶37

In CRLMC No.1912 of 2021

¶38

In this case also the Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case No.44/2020 corresponding to Nandapur P.S. Case No.54/2020 in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Koraput, for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. It is alleged that on 27^th July, 2020 upon information received regarding illegal transportation of Ganja in a Tractor being escorted by a Hero Honda Motor Cycle, the Inspector of Police STF lodged an F.I.R. before Nandapur P.S. with request to do the needful. Basing on such F.I.R., the case was registered and investigation was taken up, in course of which the accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, the I.O. has submitted charge sheet in the case. It was contended before the learned court below on behalf of the accused that as the STF had not submitted charge sheet in the case, the accused persons are entitled to be released on bail. Such application came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 1^st September, 2021.

¶39

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 5 of 13

¶40

In CRLMC No.1466 2021

¶41

In this case, the Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.56/2020 corresponding to Adava P.S. Case No.85/2020 in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Parlakhemundi for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. It is alleged that on intelligence report being received regarding illegal storage of Ganja, the Inspector of STF took steps to trace out such Ganja and found that the accused-Petitioner and another person had stored the same in a concealed manner. The Ganja was seized and the accused persons were arrested. Subsequently, on 18^th September, 2020, the Inspector of STF lodged F.I.R. leading to registration of aforementioned P.S. Case. Upon completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused-Petitioner.

¶42

In CRLMC No.1425 2021

¶43

In this case, the Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case No.52/2020 corresponding to Jeypore Town P.S. Case No.219/2020 in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Koraput at Jeypore for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. It is alleged that on 21^st August, 2020 the Inspector of STF received information about the illegal transportation of Ganja in a Truck. As such, the informant took steps for seizure of the Truck and lodged F.I.R. in Jeypore Town P.S. leading to registration of the

¶44

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 6 of 13

¶45

abovementioned P.S.Case. Upon completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused-Petitioner. The Petitioner being in custody filed an application on 22^nd July, 2021 with prayer for grant of default bail on the ground that STF should have investigated and submitted charge sheet in the case as the alleged offence was detected by it. Learned court below vide order date 11^th January, 2021 held that submission of charge sheet by Jeypore Town P.S. is not illegal and since the same was done within the statutory period of 180 days, the accused-Petitioner is not entitled to default bail.

¶46

In CRLMC No.1423 2021

¶47

In this case, the Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case No.50/2020 corresponding to Borigumma P.S. Case No.107/2020 in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Koraput at Jeypore for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. It is alleged that on 19^th August, 2020 upon receipt of information about the illegal transportation of Ganja in a Truck, the Inspector of Police proceeded to the spot and intercepted the vehicle, seized the Ganja being carried therein, apprehended the accused and lodged F.I.R. before Borigumma P.S. leading to registration of the above mentioned P.S. Case. Upon completion of the investigation, the I.O., submitted charge sheet against the accused-Petitioner. The accused, who was in custody, filed an application for being released on default bail on the ground that STF had not submitted charge sheet within the

¶48

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 7 of 13

¶49

stipulated time. Such prayer was rejected by the learned court below on the ground that power of investigation given to the STF does not bar the local Police from investigating into the matter and since charge sheet was submitted by the local Police within the stipulated period, the accused cannot be said to have acquired any indefeasible right for being released on bail.

¶50

Heard Mr. Manoranjan Padhy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶51

Submissions

¶52

It is argued by Mr. Padhy that the State Government having notified and authorized the STF to investigate offences relating to drugs, the local Police has no jurisdiction to do so. It is further submitted that in all the cases at hand, the offence was detected by the Inspector of STF, who informed their superior officer namely, S.P. CID CB and, thereafter, seized the vehicles and contraband being carried therein and also arrested the accused persons. The informations so received from the Inspectors were reduced into writing and entries made in the station diary. Thereafter, the Inspectors lodged F.I.Rs before the local Police Stations. Mr. Padhy would argue that once the STF has taken charge of the case, the local Police has no power to investigate since STF is a special agency created vide Government of Odisha Home Department Notification dated 11^th September, 2012 having jurisdiction over the

¶53

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 8 of 13

¶54

entire area of the State. Since power has been conferred upon STF by the Government to register and investigate cases, the local Police cannot have any role to play in cases detected by the STF. Thus, according to Mr. Padhy, submission of charge sheet by the local Police cannot be treated as a charge sheet valid in the eye of law. As a corollary to the above argument, it is submitted that the STF not having submitted charge sheet within the stipulated period, the accused persons are entitled to default bail as per the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶55

Per contra, Mr. Tripathy has argued that STF has been constituted as the Special investigating agency having specific role for specific matters. In this regard Mr. Tripathy has referred to the Government of Odisha, Home Department Resolution dated 17^th February, 2012 relating to constitution of STF and the functions and responsibilities of its officers. Therefore, according to Mr. Tripathy only because the STF lodged F.I.Rs. does not necessarily mean that it is bound to investigate the offence and submit charge sheet. Conversely, it cannot also be said that the local Police did not have jurisdiction to investigate into the offences on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by STF.

¶56

Findings:

¶57

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that STF is an establishment specially empowered to investigate into certain types of offences

¶58

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 9 of 13

¶59

including drug related cases having jurisdiction over the entire State. To appreciate such contention it would be apt to refer to the resolution of the Government of Odisha, Home Department bearing No.6891 dated 17^th February, 2012. The said resolution refers to the jurisdiction of STF, charter of duties, functions and responsibilities of different cadres of officers of STF, location and induction of personnel into STF. The charter of duties, so notified, are as under:-

¶60

“(1)Act as a Nodal agency in the State for dealing with organized crime.

¶61

(2)Collection of intelligence pertaining to organized crime.

¶62

(3) Interaction with Special Task Force of other States and agencies of Government of India involved in combating organized crime.

¶63

(4)Preparation of the periodic review reports and other Special Reports pertaining to organized crime in Odisha.

¶64

(5) Effective action (Investigation, prosecution, intelligence collection) against following types of organized crime and criminals.

¶65

Inter district gangs of organized criminals involved in tender fixing, extortion and related offences.

¶66

*Inter district gangs of robbers.

¶67

*Inter district gangs of Drug peddlers.

¶68

*Inter district gang of kidnappers/abductors for ransom

¶69

*Gangs involved in illicit supply of Arms, ammunition and explosives to criminal elements.

¶70

*Gangs involved in trade of human organs”.

¶71

By another Notification of Government of Odisha in Home Department dated 11^th September, 2012, the office

¶72

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 10 of 13

¶73

of the S.P., Special Task Force CID, CB, Odisha, Bhubaneswar was declared as a Police Station to be known as Special Tax Force P.S. having jurisdiction over the entire areas of the Sate. The said Notification reads as under:-

¶74

“ In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the State Government do hereby declare the office of the Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Criminal Investigation Department, Crime Branch, Odisha, Bhubaneswar as a Police Station to be known “Special Task Force Police Station” which shall within its jurisdiction, including the entire areas of the State of Odisha for the purpose of registration, investigation and prosecution of organized crime and direct that the said Police Station shall come into force on the date of publication of this Notification in the Odisha Gazette”.

¶75

From a joint reading of Resolution dated 17^th February, 2012 and the Notification dated 11^th September, 2012, it is evident that power has been conferred upon the STF P.S. for the purpose of registration, investigation and prosecution of organized crime .

¶76

In the present context, “organized crime” shall obviously refer to those crimes enumerated under Sl. No.(5) of the charter of duties quoted hereinabove. It is evident that STF has jurisdiction in respect of inter State

¶77

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 11 of 13

¶78

gangs of drug peddlers. It is not the case of the Petitioners nor there is any material on record to even remotely suggest that the alleged offences in all five cases at hand were in any manner perpetrated in the form of “organized crime” nor do they have any inter district/State ramification. In this regard, it has been argued by learned Addl. Standing Counsel that STF has been created as a separate wing to investigate “organized crimes” like extortion relating to tender-fixing having inter district/State ramifications by gangs, inter district kidnappers, gangs involved in the illicit supply of arms and ammunitions and explosives etc. Therefore, after detection of crimes, if it is found that the same do not involve any inter district/State ramification or any hardcore criminals or gangsters, such cases are handed over to the local Police having jurisdiction to investigate.

¶79

Therefore, the contention that the F.I.Rs. having been lodged by the Inspector of STF, it was duty bound to investigate seems fallacious in view of the discussion made above. It is the settled principle of law that an F.I.R. being intended to set the criminal law into motion, can be lodged by any person including a Police Officer. In the event, an F.I.R. is lodged by a Police Officer, there is no law which mandates that investigation must also be conducted by him. So, only because the concerned Inspectors of STF detected the crime and even took certain preliminary steps to apprehend the culprits

¶80

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 12 of 13

¶81

and seize the contraband etc. does not mean that only they could have investigated the offences and none else could have done so.

¶82

In the cases at hand, the concerned local Police Stations have acted upon the F.I.R. lodged by the respective Inspectors of STFS and have also submitted charge sheets under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act within the stipulated time. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that such charge sheets are non-est in the eye of law, for which the accused persons are entitled to be enlarged on default

¶83

bail.

¶84

Having regard to the discussion made hereinbefore, it is evident that the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners being untenable in law cannot, therefore, be accepted. Resultantly, it is held that the prayers for being released on default bail are also rendered untenable.

¶85

In the result, this Court finds no merit in the CRLMCs, which are accordingly dismissed.

¶86

Judge

¶87

Ashok Kumar Behera

¶88

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 13 of 13

¶89

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 14 of 13

¶90

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 15 of 13

¶91

CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 16 of 13

Iswabandhu Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iswabandhu Nayak 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

Madhusudan Kumbhar Vs State of Odisha

Padman Pangi Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Padma Kishore Jena Vs State of Odisha

Lalan Pandit Vs State of Orissa

Sundarlal Nag@Nepal Vs State of Odisha