Budhu Roy Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶18

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail relating to Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.74 of 2024, corresponding to G.R.(Spl) Case No.22 of 2024, pending before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 21(c) of NDPS Act.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in

¶20

Page 1 of 4.

¶21

custody since 12.03.2024. He further contended that the investigation has progressed substantially and the final charge-sheet is likely to be filed soon. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that as per prosecution report, the Petitioner was only the driver of the vehicle. He further contended that the alleged contraband Brown Sugar weighing 253.1 grams was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused Iswar Mahara. So far, the present Petitioner is concerned, although he was driving the vehicle however, nothing has been recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the seizure list, which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the bail application, submitted that from the possession of the present Petitioner, cash of Rs.25,000/- and one black color Oppo mobile phone was recovered. Further, referring to the seizure list of coaccused Iswar Mahara, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that from his possession the alleged contraband article, kept in two packets weighing 148.8 grams and 104.3 grams, was recovered. The vehicle that has been driven by the present Petitioner as a driver also belong to the co-accused, which was also seized along with a cash of Rs.1,75,000/-. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on the basis of the materials available on record, it cannot be concluded that any contraband article was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the present Petitioner which would attract the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that the Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the Petitioner does not belong to the State of Odisha, the Petitioner be released on bail on any stringent

¶22

Page 2 of 4.

¶23

terms and conditions deemed fit by this Court, which the Petitioner undertakes to abide by while on bail.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although the recovery was made from the accused Iswar Mahara, however, the Petitioner was the one driving the vehicle from which the alleged contraband article was recovered. The Petitioner is equally liable for possession of the contraband article, although the same was recovered from the possession of the co-accused In such view of the matter, he submitted that the prayer of the Petitioner for bail be rejected at this juncture.

¶25

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, further on a conspectus of the circumscribing facts and circumstances, particularly the seizure list in respect of the present Petitioner, this Court is of the prima facie view that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present Petitioner as has been indicated in the present seizure list. Therefore, the bar under section 37 is not attracted to the facts of the present case, so far as the present Petitioner is concerned. Further, keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedents, and the period of custodial detention of the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to following conditions:-

¶26

i) The Petitioner shall also file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating therein his residential details and other details like

¶27

Page 3 of 4.

¶28

Aadhaar No., Phone No. before the jurisdictional police station and the release of the Petitioner shall be subject to verification of the aforesaid details and such details as would be furnished by any relative of the Petitioner in the shape of an affidavit.

¶29

ii) he shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on bail;

¶30

iii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever,

¶31

iv) he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each date without fail.

¶32

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

¶33

It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶34

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶35

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶36

S.K. Rout

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 23-Aug-2024 12:43:34 Page 4 of 4.

Budhu Roy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhu Roy 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhilisita Behera@Jhili Sita Behera Vs State of Odisha

Mrutyunjaya Behera Vs State of Odisha

Ibrahim Khan Vs State of Odisha

Antarjami Meher Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Rashmiranjan Tripathy Vs State of Odisha