Dhanurjaya Hantal Vs State of Odisha

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with Special G.R. Case No.76 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, Dist-Malkangiri, arising out of Mathili P.S. Case No.100 of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶17

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.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Special Judge, Malkangiri by order dated 26.06.2024 in

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶21

This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier bail applications of the Petitioner i.e. BLAPL Nos.888 of 2023 and 14545 of 2023 were disposed of by this Court by orders dated 13.03.2023 and 04.03.2024 respectively.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 10.05.2022 on the allegation of possessing contraband (ganja) to the tune of 1526 kgs 920 grams.

¶23

It is further submitted that since Petitioner is the first offender and as only four witnesses out of 16 cited have been examined, on the ground of procrastination of trial, Petitioner seeks release. 8. In this context, the Petitioner relies on the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2024 INSC 534 (Criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024 disposed of on 18.07.2024). 9. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail in view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and submits that considering the role ascribed to the Petitioner and that four witnesses were examined who have supported the prosecution, as borne out from the order of rejection, the bail application of the Petitioner is liable to be rejected. Since the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii)

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

of the NDPS Act is squarely attracted in the case at hand, 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.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that co-accused (Babini Hantal) has since been released by order dated 23.07.2024 in BLAPL No.6899 of 2024 and since the Petitioner is at all fours with the said accused, he may be released on bail and to fortify his submission learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another , reported in 2022(10) SCC 51 relating to parity which is extracted hereunder.

¶27

“ Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with the same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.”

¶28

Considering that the Petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years and is stated to be the first offender and having his home and hearth within the jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin and the

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

snail’s pace at which the trial is progressing and release of co-accused, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.

¶31

Before releasing, learned Court in seisin is requested to verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioner. If it comes to the fore that the Petitioner has any criminal antecedent , this order shall not be given effect to.

¶32

Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional police station twice every week 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.

¶33