Ananda Nayak @ Anand Nayak Vs State of Odisha

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.72 of 2023, pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Phulbani arising out of Gochhapada P.S. Case No.58 of 2023, for commission of alleged offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)/C/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶16

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.

¶17

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Phulbani by order dated 31.07.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the accusation against the Petitioner is that he along with co-accused are involved in transportation of contraband (ganja) to the tune of 2 quintal 16 kg. 6. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was taken into custody on 25.07.2024 and since the accusation is based on account of co-accused statement, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the FIR submits that the Petitioner was not apprehended at the spot. He was named by the coaccused and basing on the same while final form was filed on 17.10.2023, the Petitioner has been cited as an absconder accused. Thereafter, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.965 of 2024 and he was granted interim protection by order dated 9.2.2024. The same interim protection continued till disposal of ABLAPL. By order dated 8.4.2024 this Court dismissed the ABLAPL and the Petitioner was taken into custody on 25.07.2024 as noted above.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh vrs. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) 80 OCR (SC) 641 and the State of Haryana vrs. Samarth Kumar, 2022 Live Law (SC) 622 and submits that since primarily the accusation against the Petitioner is on account of co-accused statement, he may be released on bail.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail relying on the judgment 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.

¶24

It is his further submission that it is clearly revealed from the charge sheet that the present Petitioner was present along with co-accused but somehow he managed to escape. Hence, considering the nature of allegation, contraband seized and he being an accused in Phulbani Excise P.S. Case No.18 of 2022 and in view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, he ought not to be released on bail.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since prima facie the involvement of the Petitioner is only on account of the co-accused statement merely because he has an antecedent that

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

should not deter this Court for directing the release of the Petitioner.

¶28

It is also not borne out from the final form that save and except the co-accused statement, there is no material to connect the Petitioner with the alleged crime.

¶29

Considering the manner of accusation, 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 the criminal antecedent.

¶30

If it comes to fore that apart from the case in hand and the case as noted hereinabove as antecedent, the Petitioner is found to be involved in any other offence of any nature, this order shall not be given effect to.

¶31

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.

¶32

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶33

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted Signature Not Verifiedas per the rules.

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt PKS ack Date: 30-Aug-2024 18:38:28

¶35

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Ananda Nayak @ Anand Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Nayak @ Anand Nayak 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

Dhanurjaya Hantal Vs State of Odisha

Kunu Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Chandan Kumar Yadav Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Dambarudhar Khara Vs State of Odisha

Arabind Kumar Singh @ Arbind Singh Vs State of Odisha