Disposed

Sagar Santosh Sonune v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Dec 2024BLAPL/8108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail application by an accused in custody since 2022 for seizure of 549 kg ganja, with charges yet to be framed afresh due to defective framing. Relying on speedy-trial rights under Article 21 and the accused being a first offender, the High Court directed release on bail with conditions including monthly police-station appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on terms fixed by the court in seisin, subject to antecedent verification, monthly police-station appearance and family member P.R. bond; default entails cancellation

Sagar Santosh Sonune Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.8108 of 2024

¶3

Sagar Santosh Sonune …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S. Manohar, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. S. Panda, ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶10

20.12.2024

¶11

Order No.

¶12

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

¶13

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. case No.87 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri arising out of Kalimela P.S. Case No.142 of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of the N.D.P.S Act.

¶14

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.

¶15

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the BNSS by the learned Special Judge, Malkangiri by order dated

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

04.07.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶18

This is the fourth journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier bail applications of the Petitioner i.e. BLAPL Nos.10077 of 2022, 6954 of 2023 and 10904 of 2023 were disposed of by this Court by orders dated 01.11.2022, 10.07.2023 and 05.01.2024 respectively.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 22.05.2022 and the allegation against him that the contraband (ganja) to the tune of 549 kgs was seized from one Mahendra XUV-500 car using fake number plate in which the Petitioner was travelling.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the first offender and in the case at hand charge sheet has already been filed on 16.11.2022. Hence, the Petitioner seeks release, primarily on the ground of procrastination of trial. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that though the Petitioner is in custody for more than two years, there is no progress in trial and the attention of this Court is drawn to the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 of the learned Special Judge, Malkangiri, which reads as under :

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

“xxx xxx xxx

¶23

Coming to the aspect of accused Sagar Santosh Sonune who is now produced in Court through escort party, it goes without saying that though his trial is on the way, since the order framing the charge is shrouded with defects as explained hereinbefore. If the tiral culminates by passage of time, it may not stand in law. Hence, necessary charge is required to be framed again as per law. In effect call on the date fixed for framing of charge.

¶24

The accused Sagar Santosh Sonune be produced on the date fixed.

¶25

xxx xxx xxx”

¶26

Referring to the same, learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri Manohar, submits that the Petitioner cannot suffer because of any defect in the framing of charge and in the process his right to speedy trial under Article-21 is being infringed and in this context here lies on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 , submits that rights of an accused under Article-21 for speedy trial overrides statutory prescription enshrined in the special laws like the NDPS Act. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer in view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, which is

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

squarely attracted in the case at hand. Hence, this BLAPL does not merit consideration.

¶29

An affidavit has been filed at the behest of the Petitioner indicating that apart from the case at hand Petitioner is not involved in any other offence.

¶30

Considering the order of the learned Trial Court extracted hereinabove, taking into account the period in custody and that the Petitioner is stated to be first offender and keeping in view his right to speedy trial as reiterated by the Apex Court as a facet of Article 21 referred to hereinabove, 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 the learned Court in seisin is requested to verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioner from his parent police station. If it comes to the fore that the Petitioner has criminal antecedent of any nature , this order shall not be given effect to. 14. To allay the legitimate apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding ensuring the presence of the Petitioner during investigation since he does not belong to the State of Odisha, 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

Page 4 of 5

¶33

Any default shall entail cancellation in accordance with law without any further reference to this Court.

¶34