Allowed

Master @ Shankirtana Amat v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Nov 2023ABLAPL/6871/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the plea to attract Section 37 Bar of the NDPS Act as contraband ganja was recovered from a principal accused and not the petitioner. The court directed surrender to the lower court for bail subject to terms and verification of antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender to Court below and move an application for bail with security Rs.30,000/-.

Master @ Shankirtana Amat Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.6871 of 2023

¶3

Master @ Shankirtana Amat …. Petitioner Mr. S.K.Rout, Advocate -versus…. State of Odisha Opposite Party Mr. A.P.Das,A.S.C.

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

¶6

Order No.

¶7

ORDER 23.11.2023

¶8

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

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the records.

¶10

This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving an offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that alleged contraband ganja of 30 K.G. was recovered from the possession of one Mukteswar Rana. It was further contended by the learend counsel or the petitioner that the Principal accused Mukteswar Rana, from whom possession of said contraband ganja was recovered, has been released on regular bail. So far the present petitioner is

¶12

// 2 //

¶13

concerned he has been arrayed as a co-accused although he was not present at the spot of occurrence and no contraband ganja has been recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedents. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be released on bail subject to any criminal antecedent.

¶14

Learned Addl. Standing counsel on the other hand submitted that during the investigation the police have tracked the telephone the present petitioner and the principal accused. Accordingly, the learned Addl. Standing counsel submitted that the bail application filed by the petitioner be rejected. 6. Considering such submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, as well as the materials on record, further keeping in view the fact that the alleged contraband ganja was not recovered from the possession of the present petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted to the present case. Accordingly this Court directs the petitioner to surrender to the Court below and move an application to the learned Court below to release the petitioner on bail subject to the petitioner furnishing a bail bond of security Rs.30,000/- for like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter. The released of the petitioner on bail shall be on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, but subject to verification of criminal antecedents. In the event, the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedents, then this order stands automatically

¶15

// 3 //

¶16

revoked.

¶17

The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶19

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶20

Rubi

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Nov-2023 10:56:38

¶22

Signature Not Verified

Master @ Shankirtana Amat v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master @ Shankirtana Amat 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

Nirtar Employees Uni Vs Joint Secy,Disabled

Sudarshan Barik Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd

Niranjan Rout Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Chandra Shah Vs State of Odisha

Bebyrani Maharana Vs Rabindra Ku.Das

Ajit Kumar Agrawalla @ Ajit Agrawal Vs Shinghal Agri. Industries Pvt. Ltd.