Allowed

Singidhanu Gopal Dora v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Aug 2024BLAPL/6639/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In BLAPLs No.6639 and 6667 of 2024, the High Court of Orissa disposed of bail applications by two petitioners accused under the NDPS Act. Despite prior rejections and State arguments citing statutory bars, the Court granted bail after verifying criminal antecedents, subject to monthly police appearances until trial concludes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to verification of criminal antecedents and monthly appearance before the jurisdictional police station until conclusion of trial.

Singidhanu Gopal Dora Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.6639 of 2024

¶3

Singidhanu Gopal Dora …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. K.A. Guru, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. State of Odisha Opposite Party

¶7

Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC

¶8

BLAPL No.6667 of 2024

¶9

Ranjan Bigneswar Dora …. Petitioner

¶10

Mr. K.A. Guru, Advocate

¶11

-versus-

¶12

State of Odisha

¶13

…. Opposite Party

¶14

Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC

¶15

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶16

23.08.2024

¶17

Order No.

¶18

1. Since both the matters arise out of Pattapura P.S. Case No.230 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Special Judge-cum-3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur for commission of the alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order on the consent of the parties.

¶19

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

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

Learned counsels, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPLs, no other bail applications of the Petitioners relating to the aforementioned case are pending in any other Court.

¶22

Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Special Judge-cum-3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur by order dated 14.05.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶23

This is the 4^th journey of the Petitioners to this Court. The bail applications of the Petitioners in BLAPL No.718 of 2023 and BLAPL Nos.4077 of 2023 and 3692 of 2023 were rejected on merit by order dated 03.02.2023 and 30.08.2023 respectively. The bail application of the Petitioners in BLAPL Nos.5629 of 2024 and 5655 of 2024 were permitted to be withdrawn giving liberty to the Petitioners to file better application in view of the discrepancies as noted in the order dated 18.06.2024.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioners are in custody since 14.07.2022 and prosecution has cited 17 witnesses out of whom 7 witnesses have already been examined and as trial is lingering, he seeks release of the Petitioners, inter alia, on the ground of procrastination of trial.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

Learned counsel for the State referring to the earlier rejection orders passed by this Court opposes the prayer for bail.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the official witnesses P.Ws.1 and 5 and referring to their cross-examination submits that the tenor of their evidence ex facie does lend credence to the prosecution case. Hence, further continuance of the Petitioners in custody is not warranted.

¶28

Such submission is refuted by the learned counsel for the State. It is submitted that while considering the application for bail it is not open for this Court to make a detailed examination of the materials on record and referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State by the Inspector of Police vrs. B. Ramu in SLP (Crl.) No(s).8137 of 2022 dated 12.02.2024 opposes the prayer for bail and also on account of bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S Act.

¶29

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are ordinarily residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin. Hence, there is no chance of their absconding. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ankur Chaudhary vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh in SLP (Crl.) No.4648 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024, the Petitioners seek release.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

Considering that the Petitioners are the first offenders and they are in custody since 14.07.2022 and trial is likely to be linger, this Court directs the Petitioners to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned court in seisin subject to verification of criminal antecedent.

¶32

If it comes to fore that the Petitioners have any criminal antecedent, this order shall not be given effect to.

¶33

Additionally it is directed that the Petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once every month on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.

¶34

It is needless to state that the observations made here are only for the purpose 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

Accordingly, the bail applications stand

¶36

disposed of.

¶37

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed (V. Narasingh) Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAINReason: Authentication Judge Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 25-Aug-2024 11:39:17PKS

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Singidhanu Gopal Dora v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singidhanu Gopal Dora v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eiboil Gmbh Vs Mv WADIALBOSTAN(IMO9460722)

Nabin Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Yash Gaikwad Vs State of Odisha

Kamini Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Balaya Kasa Vs State of Odisha

Swadhin Meher Vs State of Odisha