Disposed

Md. Pyare v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Aug 2024BLAPL/6777/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused in an NDPS case involving seizure of about 258 grams of heroin. The Court noted his prolonged custody as a first offender and delayed trial, relied on Supreme Court precedents, and directed release on bail subject to verification of criminal antecedents and periodic police-station appearances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on terms fixed by the trial court, subject to verification that he has no criminal antecedents, with bi-monthly police station appearance till end of trial.

Md. Pyare Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6777 of 2024

¶2

Md. Pyare

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. A. Biswal, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Orissa

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

23.08.2024

Order No.

02.

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

¶14

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with Special G.R. Case No.04/49 of 2023 pending on the file of learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, arising out of Plantsite P.S. Case No.100 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections-21(C)/25/29 of 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 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela by order dated

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

13.06.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶19

This is the fourth journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier this Court did not entertain BLAPL No. 5960 of 2023 of the Petitioner by order dated 20.07.2023 during the currency of investigation and taking into account the contraband(Heroin) seized to the tune of 258 grams 030mg. Thereafter, post charge sheet the Petitioner moved this Court in BLAPL No.10876 of 2023, which was rejected by order dated 11.10.2023. Thereafter the Petitioner moved this Court in BLAPL No.1084 of 2024 which was rejected by order dated 18.03.2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is the case of the prosecution that the Petitioner is the rider of Hero Super Splender (OD-14P-6213). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the charge sheet on record that conscious much less exclusive possession cannot be attributed to the Petitioner and in this context he relies on the recitals of the charge sheet at page-30 which reads as under:-

¶21

“…..On verification no (sic nothing) contraband detected from the tool box of the Hero Super Splendour having number plate OD-14P-6213 being opened by its rider Md. Pyare……”

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

He draws the attention of this Court to the recitals in the said charge sheet at page 29-30, that the contraband was seized from the Honda Activa Scooty bearing No. OR-14Q-1520.

¶24

“…On verification/search of the underseat storage of black colour Honda Activa Scooty having number plate-OR-14-Q-1520 by rider Hassan Khan and Nadeem Khan using the key in presence of witnesses, weigh man & Executive Magistrate found an air tight selflocked transparent polythene packet containing contraband Heroin kept in another air tight self-locked transparent polythene packet which myself, witnesses & EM confirmed from its odour, look & texture……”

¶25

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a first offender and is in custody since 14.03.2023. Hence, on the basis of materials on record it is urged with vehemence that the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act is prima facie not attracted. Hence, both on the ground of delay in trial and on the ground that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value no offence under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act is made out, the Petitioner seeks release. 9. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and referring to the very page-30 of the charge sheet which was adverted to hereinabove and submits that from the manner of seizure, the

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

statement of the seizure witnesses Prakash Chandra Behera and Suraj Saha that the conscious possession is clearly borne out qua the Petitioner and the said grounds cannot be taken into account at this stage during the consideration of bail application.

¶28

There is no cavil about the statement of the learned counsel for the State regarding the manner of appreciation of evidence in a case under the Special Act, but at the same time this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Petitioner who is stated to be the first offender is in custody since 14.03.2023. And, the case has not progressed beyond the stage of framing of charge and the prosecution has sought to rely on 24 witnesses to drive home the charge.

¶29

Considering the competing submissions at the Bar, taking into account the recitals in the charge sheet noted above and keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case Rabi Prakash vrs. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC Online SC and in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 , this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin subject to verification of criminal antecedent.

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

If it comes to fore that the Petitioner has criminal antecedent of any nature, this order shall not be given effect to.

¶32

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

¶33

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the rules.

¶34

(V. NARASINGH)

¶35

Ayesha Judge

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Aug-2024 11:40:22

¶38

Page 5 of 5

Md. Pyare v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Pyare 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

Mahajit Karna Vs State of Odisha

Mujassim Vs State of Odisha

Singidhanu Gopal Dora Vs State of Odisha