Dismissed

Sayyad Atik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Nov 2023BLAPL/787/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An accused in a narcotics case challenged the rejection of his restitution bail application under CrPC 439. The High Court, noting the delay in trial and the statutory bar under NDPS Act, refused bail and directed that the trial be concluded by end of the first quarter.

What did the court decide?

Bail application disposed of; liberty granted to renew prayer if trial is not concluded by end of first quarter.

Sayyad Atik Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 787 of 2023

¶3

Sayyad Atik

¶4

Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER 14.11.2023

Order No.

06.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Special G.R. Case No. 97 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, arising out of Kalimela P.S. Case No. 155 of 2022 for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of the NDPS Act.

¶15

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, by order dated 12.01.2023, in Bail, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2022 on the accusation that he along with other co-accused are involved in the transportation of contraband to the tune of 79Kgs 900gms (Ganja).

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

An affidavit has been placed on record indicating that the Petitioner is the first offender.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as final form has been submitted on 30.11.2022 and since the trial is lingering, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is unwarranted.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail in view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act.

¶21

Taking into account the submission that the trial is not progressing, a report was called for from the learned Court in seisin and the report dated 25.09.2023 is on record and it is stated that out of 12 charge sheeted witnesses 7 have already been examined and the case is expected to be disposed of by end of 1^st quarter of 2024.

¶22

Referring to the charge sheet, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the noting of the learned Special Judge that there are 12 charge sheeted witnesses is an error of record inasmuch as there are 16 charge sheeted witnesses to be examined and relying on the recitals of some of the prosecution witnesses, it is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner with vehemence that taking into account the tenor of their evidence, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not justified.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State submits that during the course of trial it is not open for this Court to make a microscopic examination of the materials on record.

¶24

This Court is persuaded to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the State and taking into account the report as

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

submitted, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage.

¶27

Learned Court in seisin is requested to conclude the trial by end of 1^st quarter of 2024.

¶28

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer before the learned Court in seisin in the event trial is not concluded within the time stipulated.

¶29

Registry is requested to communicate this order.

¶30

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶31

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

¶32

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶33

Ayesha

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Nov-2023 19:09:21

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Sayyad Atik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyad Atik 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

Mukunda Hantal Vs State of Odisha

Labanga Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Jitendra Behera@Jitendra Nath Behera Vs State of Odisha

Anup Bar Vs State of Odisha

Bhaskar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Damburudhar Pangi Vs State of Odisha