Disposed

Sk. Anwar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Mar 2024BLAPL/926/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC in an NDPS case involving alleged possession of 21 kg gantra/ganja, where accusation rested on a co-accused's statement. Relying on Tofan Singh and Samarth Kumar, the High Court granted bail with conditions including weekly police-station appearances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on terms to be fixed by the trial court, subject to verification of criminal antecedents and twice-weekly police station appearances.

Sk. Anwar Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 926 of 2024

¶3

Sk. Anwar …. Petitioner Mr. C. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER 07.03.2024 Order No. 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with T.R. Case No.353 of 2023, pending before the Court of the learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge at Bhubaneswar, arising out of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.288 of 2023, for alleged commission of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act. 3. 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. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge,BBSR by order dated 17.01.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶4

Page 1 of 2

¶5

This is the second journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier the bail application of the Petitioner was not entertained by this Court by order dated 31.10.2023 in BLAPL No.12052 of 2023 since the same was during the currency of investigation.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2023 on the allegation that possessing contraband(ganja) to the tune of 21 kg and as charge sheet has already been filed on 28.12.2023, he may be released on bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the basis of accusation is on account of co-accused statement and hence it is the submission that prima facie the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the case at hand.

¶8

Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer and submits that the Petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature and also relies on the order of 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 to fortify the submission that since charge sheet has filed, there is prima facie involvement of this Petitioner.

¶9

Hence as the twin embargo are attracted in the case at hand, the Petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

¶10

Taking into account the nature of accusation, on the basis of co-accused statement and keeping in view the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh vrs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (2020) 80 OCR (SC) 641 and the State of Haryana vrs. Samarth Kumar reported in 2022 Live Law (SC)622, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned court in seisin.

¶11

Page 2 of 3

¶12

Keeping in view the criminal proclivity of the Petitioner, 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 the conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.

¶13

Before releasing, learned Court in seisin is requested to verify as to whether the submission of the learned counsel at the Bar that the Petitioner has been cited as an accused in only Khandagiri P.S. case No.548 of 2022 is correct or not. In the event, the submission relating to criminal antecedent is found to be incorrect and the Petitioner has any other criminal antecedent apart from the said case and the case at hand, this order shall not be given effect to.

¶14

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the rules.

¶15

(V. NARASINGH)
Soumya Judge

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Mar-2024 20:36:29

¶18

Page 3 of 3

Sk. Anwar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Anwar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Dighal Vs State of Odisha

Rabi Khilla @ Rabi Khila Vs State of Odisha

Sudu Khilla Vs State of Odisha

Pakili Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Makuru Purty Vs State of Odisha

Ramu Jena Vs State of Odisha