Chaggan Bapu Shnde@Chhagan Bapu Shinde Vs State of Odisha

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with Special G.R. Case No.143 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, arising out of Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.118 of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

¶15

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.

¶16

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Special Judge, Malkangiri (I/c.) by order dated 27.06.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶19

This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier the Petitioner along with one coaccused moved this Court in BLAPL No.12477 of 2022. The same was rejected by order dated 03.02.2023 since the same was during the currency of investigation. Thereafter, the Petitioner had moved this Court in BLAPL No.6864 of 2023 which was rejected by judgment dated 23.08.2023.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2022 on the allegation of being involved in the transportation of contraband (ganja) to the tune of 104 kgs 500 grams.

¶21

It is stated that since charge sheet has already been filed on 09.03.2023 and the trial is protracting , he may be released on bail.

¶22

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the earlier bail application of one co-accused, namely, Munna Innus Shaik, who is similarly circumstanced, was rejected by this Court by order dated 09.11.2023 in BLAPL No.6861 of 2023 and the matter being carried to the Apex Court, by order dated 24.04.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No.1054 of 2024 he was granted bail and the primary reason for the

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

Hon’ble Supreme Court to exercise its discretion was taking into account that the said Petitioner was in custody for about 1½ years.

¶25

Hence on the ground of parity, Petitioner seeks release and in this context, he relies on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in ( 2022) 10 SCC 51 more particularly paragraph 98 thereof.

¶26

On instruction, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is the first offender. 11. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the Petitioner is a flight risk and in the meanwhile five witnesses have already been examined and hence releasing the Petitioner at this stage would derail the ongoing trial. He also relies on the order 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 submits that prima facie case is well made out and in view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the Petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

¶27

Taking into account the period in custody since 15.09.2022 and the order of the Apex Court referred to herein above and keeping in view the right of the

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

Petitioner for speedy trial, as a facet of Article 21, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.

¶30

Before releasing, learned Court in seisin is requested to verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioner from his parent police station i.e. P.S.Karmala, Dist-Solapur, Rural (Maharashtra). If it comes to the fore that the Petitioner has any criminal antecedent , this order shall not be given effect to.

¶31

Additionally, it is directed that Petitioner 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.

¶32

It is further directed that one of the family member of the Petitioner shall execute P.R bond in addition to the sureties so fixed.

¶33

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 17. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

(V. Narasingh) Judge

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Santoshi Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Aug-2024 20:27:50

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Chaggan Bapu Shnde@Chhagan Bapu Shinde v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaggan Bapu Shnde@Chhagan Bapu Shinde 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

Om Prakas Pasi Vs State of Odisha

Bhagaban Swain Vs State of Odisha

Sangram Swain Vs State of Odisha

Abul Hasnain Vs State of Odisha

Jaihind Rajput @ Jayhind Rajput Vs State of Odisha

Sujan Kanhar Vs State of Odisha