Allowed

Sanjit Singh v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Aug 2024BLAPL/708/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application for bail under Section 439 CrPC was filed by two petitioners accused of offences under the NDPS Act involving seized ganja. The court relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment to exclude the commercial quantity bar due to prolonged detention and clean record, granting bail with stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on bond of Rs.40,000 each with two sureties; bail conditioned on verification of antecedents, regular attendance, and appearance before police fortnightly.

Sanjit Singh Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.708 of 2024

¶2

1) Sanjit Singh ..... Petitioners

¶3

Herendra Paswan Represented By Adv. - Anirudha Das

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State Of Odisha

¶6

..... Opposite Parties

¶7

Represented By Adv. – S.S.Mohapatra, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

01.08.2024

Order No.

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶15

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioners for bail in connection with Sambalpur Excise El & EB Unit-II PR No.272/2023-24, corresponding to T.R. No.98/03 of 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, (Special Court), Sambalpur for alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are in custody since 19.06.2023. He contended that in the meantime the investigation has been concluded and final charge sheet has been

¶17

Page 1 of 4 .

¶18

filed. Further, referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R., learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that keeping in view the quantity of ganja seized, i.e., 72 kgs., were recovered from three persons including the present petitioners. He further contended that the present petitioners were occupants of the vehicle from which the contraband ganja was recovered. He further contended that one Jay Bikash was the driver of the vehicle from which the contraband ganja was recovered. He further submitted that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal antecedents. He further contended that in the meantime although more than one year has elapsed, the trial has not commenced, not a single witness has been examined so far. Further contends that the petitioners do not belong to State of Odisha, therefore, the Petitioners are ready and willing shall abide by any terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶19

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the bail application of the Petitioners on the ground that the quantity of alleged contraband ganja is more than the commercial quantity, the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would be attracted to the facts of the present case. He further contended that such cases are increasing day-by-day and no leniency should be shown to the petitioners. He further submitted that the Petitioners belong to State of Bihar, therefore, release of the Petitioners be difficult to ensure the appearance of the Petitioners before the Trial Court during trial. In such view of the matter, he submitted that the bail application of the Petitioners be rejected at this juncture.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case, further keeping the view the

¶21

Page 2 of 4 .

¶22

period of detention of the Petitioners in jail custody and the fact that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal antecedent, the bar under Section 37 would not be attracted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2023 decided on 28.03.2023, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioners on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions.

¶23

Hence, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter subject to the following terms and conditions:

¶24

I) The Petitioners shall also file an affidavit before the Trial Court with regard to indicating there his residential details other details like Aadhar No., Phone No. before the jurisdictional police station & further release of the Petitioners shall be subject to verification of such details as would be furnished by any relative of the Petitioners in the shape of an affidavit.

¶25

II) they shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on bail;

¶26

III) they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever;

¶27

IV) they shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each date without fail;

¶28

V) they shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till conclusion of the trial.

¶29

Page 3 of 4 .

¶30

Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶31

It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioners be subject to the condition that the court below shall verify the similar criminal antecedent of the Petitioners. In the event the Petitioners are having any similar criminal antecedent under the offences of NDPS Act, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked.

¶32

BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶35

Anil

¶36

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4 . Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Aug-2024 10:53:10

Sanjit Singh v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjit Singh 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

Balakrushna Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Alekha Dalai Vs State of Odisha

Runu Behera Vs State of Odisha

Ipsita Behura Vs State of Odisha

Debraj Behera Vs Union of India