Allowed

John Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Jul 2024BLAPL/405/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application under Section 439 CrPC for alleged transporting of 54 kg ganja under the NDPS Act. With only one prosecution witness examined (who did not support the prosecution case) and over a year in custody without trial completion, the court dispensed with Section 37 conditions and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail; bail bonds Rs.1,00,000 with two local solvent sureties each for like amount.

John Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 405 of 2024

¶3

John Nayak

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. J.K. Panda, Advocate along with Mr. S.S. Dash, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

… Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶11

ORDER(ORAL) 22.07.2024

¶12

Order No.

¶13

09.

¶14

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

¶15

This is the second bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with 2(a).C.C. Case No.50 of 2023 arising out of P.R. Case No.526 of 2022-23 pending in the file of learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the allegation of transporting 54Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a white color Hyundai Verna Car bearing Registration No.OD05-AZ-3540.

¶16

Mr. Jugala Kishore Panda, learned counsel enters appearance by filing Vakalatnama along with Mr. Sudhansu Sekha Dash, who was earlier appearing

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

for the petitioner, and submits that this is the 2^nd journey of the petitioner to this Court, but no bail application of the petitioner is pending before any other forum except this one. The Vakaltnama be kept on record.

¶19

Heard, Mr. Jugala Kishore Panda, learned counsel and Mr. T.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel in the matter and perused the record.

¶20

It has been brought to the notice of the Court that out of three witnesses, only one witness has been examined till today and the charge against the petitioner was framed on 09.01.2024, but the petitioner has been detained in custody since 10.03.2023. It further appears from the record that the only witness examined in this case has not supported the prosecution case and the learned trial Court has submitted a report to say that the probable time required for disposal of this case may be within six months.

¶21

In view of the above facts, especially when the witness examined on behalf of the prosecution has not supported the prosecution case and the petitioner is in custody since 10.03.2023, but the trial having not completed even after one year and five months of the custody of the petitioner and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rabi Prakash vs. the State of Odisha; 2023 Live

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

Law(SC) 533 and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2024 Live Law(SC)416 , the compliance of conditions U/s. 37 of NDPS Act in this situation be dispensed with and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, since there is no reasonable progress of trial.

¶24

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)only with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case, on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

¶25

(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail,

¶26

(ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance are dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law and

¶27

(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by giving his present address of stay.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for offence under NDPS Act on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case.

¶30

It is made clear that the Court in seisin of the case, while releasing the petitioner on bail must verify the residential proof of the surety by taking the help of local police, if required and such exercise must be completed within a reasonable period of not more than seven days of filing bail bonds.

¶31