Ranjit Bagh Vs State of Odisha

This is the successive journey of the Petitioner in filing this application under Section-438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Machhakunda Case No.93 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.59 of 2020 pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Koraput, running for commission of offence under Section-20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶16

It be stated that at this stage, this Petitioner had earlier moved this Court in ABLAPL No.12644 of 2020 and ABLAPL No. 14243 of 2020. The first one had been withdrawn, when the averments taken by the Petitioner in his application at paragraph-5 that he was a passenger in the vehicle wherefrom the contraband ganja had been seized had been pointed out.

¶17

The subsequent one was rejected considering the submission and on going through the materials as also other surrounding circumstances.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Mr. N. Lenka, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that even though the case concerns with the seizure of 530 Kgs. 100 grams of ganja, there is no material against the Petitioner to connect him with the said seized contraband. He submits that in the meantime, charge-sheet has been submitted and the trial against other accused persons are going on. He next submits that the Petitioner apprehends his arrest in view of the statement made in the charge-sheet that the accused persons confessed that they were transporting ganja to Jeypore for this Petitioner, which according to him is not admissible in the eye of law. He thus, submits that likely arrest and detention of the Petitioner would not be in the interest of justice.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the State opposing the move submits that preliminary charge-sheet has been submitted in connection with the case and the investigation has been kept open including the investigation as to the financial angle. He submits that this Petitioner’s involvement has not at all been ruled out in the said charge-sheet. He further submits that the first round of trial has already started, and it is the evidence that when two persons travelling in the Bolero vehicle, one person in Swift Desire, managed to escape from the spot, and then the contraband ganja of such quantity has been seized from Bolero vehicle. He, therefore, submits that grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner would practically seal the fate of further investigation for ever as in this exercise custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is an absolute necessity.

¶22

Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials available on record; further keeping in

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

view the other surrounding circumstances and taking into account the progress of first round of trial, when further investigation of this case is in progress; I do not find it to be a fit case for reconsideration of the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner as even at this stage, the requirement of his custodial interrogation is not ruled out.

¶26