Allowed

Hare Krushna Chetty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC27 Feb 2024BLAPL/8975/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed bail to the petitioner, a N.D.P.S. accused facing difficulties in trial due to the non-production of a running co-accused. The court directed interim release subject to strict personal attendance and non-fractionation conditions. The Section 37 bar was deemed inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with terms to appear in person, remain within jurisdiction, and avoid criminal activity.

Hare Krushna Chetty Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.8975 of 2022

¶3

Hare Krushna Chetty

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. D. Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party Mr. S. K. Nayak, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

ORDER

Order No.

27.02.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.

¶15

This is the successive journey of this petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case No.67 of 2018, corresponding to T.R Case No.22 of 2018, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput for offence punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in filing this application under section 439, Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

¶16

Heard Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. K. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate. Peruse the case record as placed.

¶17

Perusal of the materials as placed, when it is seen that the trial is not progressing for non-production of the co-accused, namely, Dillip Rajbhar, who has been granted bail and the Petitioner, who is having his permanent residence within the jurisdiction of this Court earlier being on interim bail, had surrendered in time.

¶18

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been implicated in the case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused that he had his hand in the said collection and

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

transportation of Ganja. He, highlighting the above circumstances, submits that the bar contained under section 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage, would not stand on the way.

¶21

In view of all the aforesaid, while being inclined to reconsider the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner; it is directed that he be released on bail in the aforesaid case with such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court in seisin of the case with further condition that:-

¶22

a) Petitioner will appear in person before the Court in seisin of the case on each date of posting of the case, till conclusion of the

¶23

trial;
b) will not leave the jurisdiction of the Court in seisin of the case;
and
c) will not indulge himself in any criminal activity.
Violation of any of the condition(s) shall entail cancellation of the
bail.
6. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶24

(D. Dash) Judge

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Gitanjali

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 04-Mar-2024 13:07:23

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Hare Krushna Chetty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hare Krushna Chetty 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

Laxmidhar Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha

Kumuda Ojha @ Kumuda Chandra Ojha Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Bijaya Sethi Vs Hari Sethi

Balaram Padhial Vs State of Odisha

Srinibash Mishra @ Srinibas Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Smruti Ranjan Naik @ Nayak Vs State of Odisha