Kunu Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

Kunu Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail granted; the Court was not inclined to entertain the BLAPL at this stage and the BLAPL stands disposed of. Directions issued: trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously; Registry to do the needful; learned counsel for the State to ensure presence of witnesses on the date fixed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, who has been in custody since 19.02.2023 with the trial not having progressed beyond framing of charge, should be released on bail on the ground of procrastination of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

While the right to speedy trial as a facet of Article 21 is not disputed, a proposition of law cannot be applied bereft of the factual matrix of each case.

Ratio / Principle

Bail refused at this stage: the Petitioner's criminal antecedent of a similar nature places his case outside the recent Supreme Court pronouncements in Rabi Prakash and Mohd. Muslim, and the Court is therefore not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage.

Key takeaways

Taking into account that the Petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2023, the learned Court in seisin is requested to conclude the trial expeditiously.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act – bail under S.439 Cr.P.C. – third bail application (earlier BLAPL Nos.5872/2023 and 8653/2023 disposed 06.06.2023 and 29.11.2023) – accused in T.R. Case No.106 of 2023 (Mancheswar P.S. Case No.68 of 2023) under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 NDPS Act – in custody since 19.02.2023, trial stalled at framing of charge – plea of procrastination of trial and right to speedy trial under Article 21: right accepted as a facet of Article 21 but a proposition of law cannot be applied bereft of the factual matrix of each case – State opposed invoking bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act and relied on State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu – criminal antecedent of similar nature (Tamando P.S. Case No.122/2020 u/s 20(b)(ii) NDPS Act; Phulabani Sadar P.S. Case No.170/2022 u/ss 294/341/323/324/354(B)/506/34 IPC) takes the case outside the recent pronouncements in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 and Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 1648 – Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 noted as still holding the field – bail application not entertained at this stage and disposed of; trial court requested to conclude trial expeditiously; State to ensure presence of witnesses.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No. 4658 of 2024

Kunu Pradhan

Petitioner

Mr. R.C. Maharana, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha

…. Opposite Party

Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

29.08.2024

Order No.

01.

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

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with T.R. Case No.106 of 2023 pending on the file of learned 5^th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, arising out of Mancheswar P.S. Case No.68 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the NDPS Act.

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.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 5^th Addl. Sessions Judge, BBSR by order dated 05.04.2024

Page 1 of 4

in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier bail applications of the Petitioner i.e. BLAPL Nos.5872 of 2023 and 8653 of 2023 were disposed of by this Court by orders dated 06.06.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively.

While rejecting the earlier bail application of the Petitioner by order dated 29.11.2023 in BLAPL No.8653 of 2023, this Court took note of the criminal antecedent in paragraph-7 of the said order. The same is extracted hereunder for convenience of ready reference:

xxx xxx xxx

It is his further submission that the present Petitioner has criminal antecedent of similar nature inasmuch as, he has been cited as an accused in the following cases;

Tamando P.S. Case No.122 dt. 21.04.20 u/s 20(b)(ii) NDPS Act.

Phulabani Sadar P.S. Case No.170 dt.

28.11.2022 u/s- 294/ 341/ 323/ 324/ 354(B)/ 506/ 34 of IPC .

xxx xxx xxx

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is in custody since 19.02.2023 and the trial has not progressed beyond framing of charge, on the ground of procrastination of trial, he may be released.

Page 2 of 4

Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer in view of bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act hand and also relies on the judgment 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 .

While rejecting the earlier bail application of the Petitioner, this Court had taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673 which still holds the field.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that right to speedy trial being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, his further pre-trial detention is a negation of such right.

There is no cavil about such proposition of law as being advanced. But it is trite that proposition of law cannot be applied bereft of the factual matrix of each case.

Since in the case at hand the Petitioner has criminal antecedent of similar nature apart from another case as noted above, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioner case is covered by the recent pronouncements of the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 and Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Page 3 of 4

reported in AIR 2023 SC 1648. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage.

Taking into account the Petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2023, learned Court in seisin is requested to conclude the trial expeditiously.

Registry is requested to do the needful.

Learned counsel for the State is called upon to ensure the presence of witnesses on the date fixed.

Copy of this order be made over to the learned

counsel for the State to do the needful.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge

Soumya

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Aug-2024 17:34:09

Page 4 of 4