Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Oct 2023BLAPL/1075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for bail under Section 439 CrPC. Considering a delay of nearly two years in trial and Supreme Court precedents regarding unnecessary delay affecting the accused, the court granted bail with strict conditions, including verification of criminal antecedents by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties, subject to strict conditions including monthly police reporting and automatic revocation if criminal antecedents are found.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.1075 of 2023

¶3

Sandeep Kumar …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. N.N. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opp. Party Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

18.10.2023

Order No.

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Perused the F.I.R., case diary and other relevant documents as well as statement of the witnesses.

¶15

This is an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶16

The petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.95 of 2021 arising out of Adava P.S. Case No.93 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)C/25 /29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶17

The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 02.09.2021 at around 9.31 A.M., while the officials of Adava Police Station

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

were conducting their patrolling duty, they got credible information from reliable sources that the contraband Ganja is being loaded at near Village Balibandha Chhak in a Truck by the drug peddlers. After getting such information from that reliable source the raiding staffs proceeded to the spot to verify the veracity of the information. It is respectfully submitted that after reaching at the spot at about 11.00 A.M., they saw that one white colour Truck is in starting position and about to proceed and one Motor cycle was there. Seeing the truck, the raiding party suddenly arrived there and rebelled the vehicle. On verification of the Truck bearing Registration Number-HR-56B-9002 and one H.G. Deluxe Motor Cycle bearing Registration Number-OD-20-B-2486 and they found four persons in the driver chamber and one person on the dala of the truck. On being asked by the police, they disclosed their names. However, the informant and his staffs were not able to apprehend the accused persons from the spot. Upon the search of the vehicle, they found huge quantity of ganja. During the search the police officials found 315 Kgs. 100 grams of contraband ganja and after observing all the formalities of NDPS Act and seized the contraband articles and drew the F.I.R.

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2021 on being arrested at the spot by the raiding party. He further submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has also contended that the

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and he is in custody for almost two years and that the trial has not yet commenced. It is also contended that out of sixteen witnesses, none of them have been examined so far. Therefore, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in near future.

¶23

Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 and in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4169/2023, decided on 13.07.2023), learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Apex Court has held that if there is unnecessary delay in trial which affects the rights of the accused-Petitioner as guaranteed under the Constitution of India, then the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not attracted. Further, referring to the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner is in custody for more than two years and the witnesses have not been examined as of now. Therefore, the case of the petitioner also falls under the similar parameter as has been laid down in the aforesaid judgment. In addition to the development, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to the locality and there is no scope of absconding or fleeing away from the hands of justice and that the bail application of the petitioner may be considered.

¶24

Leaned Additional Standing Counsel for the State

¶25

// 4 //

¶26

vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner and submits that the quantity involved in the present case is more than the commercial quantity, which has been illegally transported. He further submits that a number of such cases are increasing day-by-day and no leniency should be shown to the Petitioner or similarly situated persons. There is possibility that the petitioner might indulge in similar nature of offence while on bail and the bail application of the petitioner should be rejected at this juncture.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties, upon conspectus of surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain’s case (supra) and in Rabi Prakash’s case (supra) , and considering the period of custodial detention of the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount and an additional bailer who shall be a family member of the Petitioner, to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. While releasing the petitioner on bail, the court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as would be deemed just and proper including the conditions are as follows:-

¶28

I. The Petitioner shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature;

¶29

II. he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever;

¶30

III. he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial;

¶31

IV. he shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a month preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till conclusion of trial; and

¶32

V. he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court in seisin over the matter and shall furnish his address and mobile number to the police from time to time.

¶33

Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶34

It is open for the court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper.

¶35

It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to the condition that learned court below shall verify whether the Petitioner has any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner has any criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked.

¶36

It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to attend the

¶37

// 6 //

¶38

court on the date fixed on a single occasion, this order shall stand automatically revoked and the learned court below is at liberty to issue N.B.W. against the petitioner forthwith.

¶39