Dalabehera Sabita Dora @ D. Sabita Dora Vs State of Odisha

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No.95 of 2022 (N), pending on the file of learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Berhampur arising out of Pattapur P.S. Case No.434 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S Act.

¶16

Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court.

¶17

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge-Special Judge, Berhampur by order dated 29.01.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

The bail application of the Petitioner was rejected by order dated 31.07.2023 in BLAPL No.5087 of 2023 taking into account that the allegation against the Petitioner that she was traveling in a vehicle from which the contraband (ganja) to the tune of 243 Kg. 230 grams was recovered and also taking note of the fact that the vehicle in question belongs to the son of the Petitioner.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that admittedly the Petitioner is in custody since 3.12.2022 and in the meanwhile 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

¶21

It is his further submission that in the case at hand there is violation of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S Act and in this context, he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Boota Singh & others vrs. State of Haryana , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 324 . Hence, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted.

¶22

It is stated that the Petitioner is a lady and she is in custody for more than a year and she is the first offender. Hence, leniency ought to be shown to her.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of State by the Inspector of Police vs. B. Ramu in SLP(Crl.) No(s).8137 of 2022 dated 12.02.2024 and since prima facie case is well made out against the Petitioner, she ought not to be released on bail.

¶24

He further submits that so far as violation of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S Act is concerned, the same can be considered during

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

trial and it is his further submission, referring to the said decision of the Apex Court in the case of Boota Singh (supra), that admittedly the same was at the stage of appeal and is not applicable in the ongoing trial.

¶27

There is no cavil about the submission of the learned counsel for the State regarding applicability of the judgment cited and the limit of the power of the Court to interfere during the course of ongoing trial.

¶28

It is seen that in the case at hand prosecution has cited 16 witnesses and 6 witnesses have been examined and 10 more witnesses are to be examined in the event the prosecution decides to examine all the cited witnesses and as such the trial is likely to linger.

¶29

Taking into account that the Petitioner is a lady and that she is in custody for more than a year and has no criminal antecedent, this Court directs the Petitioners to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned court in seisin over the matter.

¶30

Before releasing, learned Court in seisin is requested to verify as to whether the Petitioner has any criminal proclivity. If it comes to fore that the Petitioner has any criminal proclivity, this order shall not be given effect to.

¶31

Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the learned Court in seisin on each date of trial and in addition to the sureties so fixed, one of the family member of the Petitioner shall execute a P.R. bond. The Petitioner shall not leave

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

the State of Odisha without express permission of the learned Court in seisin.

¶34

It is needless to state here that the case at hand shall not be cited as a precedent relating to other accused. And, observation made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of bail application and ought not to be construed as expressing any opinion regarding complicity of the Petitioner which has to be adjudicated in the impending trial on its own merit.

¶35

The BLAPL thus stands disposed of.

¶36

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

¶37

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶38

PKS

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 16-Apr-2024 15:41:42

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Dalabehera Sabita Dora @ D. Sabita Dora v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalabehera Sabita Dora @ D. Sabita Dora v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gananath Padhan @ Gana Padhan @ Ganesh Padhan Vs State of Odisha

Mukteswar Rana Vs State of Odisha

Madhusmita Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Bipin Bihari Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ankit Kumar Vs State of Odisha

D. Selvumurugan Vs State of Odisha