Allowed

Chandrakanta Bagarty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Sept 2024BLAPL/8848/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Cuttack disposed of a bail application filed by two petitioners charged with NDPS offences. Considering lack of antecedents and no attrition of bar under section 37, bail was granted on monetary bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail furnishing bond of Rs. 30,000 each with solvent sureties; bail subject to future verification of criminal antecedents by court below.

Chandrakanta Bagarty Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.8848 of 2024

¶2

1) Chandrakanta Bagarty

¶3

..... Petitioners

¶4

Prasanta Mallick Represented By Adv. - Susampad Hota

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State Of Odisha

¶7

..... Opposite Parties

¶8

Represented By Adv. – Mr. P.C. Das, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

18.09.2024

Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶17

The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the Petitioners for regular bail relating to Rayagada P.S. Case No.48 of 2024, corresponding to T.R. Case No.36 of 2024, pending before the learned Special Judge-cum-District & Sessions Judge, Rayagada, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

¶18

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 10.08.2024. He further contended that the investigation has progressed substantially and the final charge-sheet

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

is likely to be filed soon. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that as per allegation of the FIR, the total quantity of 14.520 kg and 4.360 kg of contraband ganja have been recovered from the possession of the present Petitioners respectively. Therefore, the bar under section 37 is not attracted to the facts of the present case. It was also contended that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal antecedent and that since the Petitioners belong to locality, there is no chance of absconding. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners be released on bail on any terms and condition deemed fit by this Court which the Petitioners undertake to abide by while on bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the allegations made in the FIR are serious in nature. Learned counsel for the State opposed the release of the Petitioners in view of the nature and seriousness of allegation made against the Petitioners. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioners be rejected at this juncture.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, and the fact that the bar under section 37 is not attracted to the facts of the present case, and the fact that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner No.1 on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Similarly it is inclined to release the Petitioner No.2 on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶23

Page 2 of 3.

¶24

learned court in seisin over the matter. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶25

It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioners are subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the Petitioners are having any similar criminal antecedent. In the event it is found that the Petitioners are having any similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked.

¶26

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶27

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶28

Judge

¶29

S.K. Rout

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 3. Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Sep-2024 15:23:58

Chandrakanta Bagarty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakanta Bagarty 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divl. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Bbsr Branch Vs Soudamini Sahoo

Amiya Biswal Vs Krushna Chandra Jena

Himansu Sekhar Rautray Vs Chennu Boyena Adi Narayan

Pitambar Gadaba Vs State of Odisha

Keshab Maharana @ Keshab Chandra Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Goura Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha