Dismissed

Dayanidhi Kanhar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC27 Feb 2024CRLA/1137/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a CRLA appeal under the J.J. Act,2015, the High Court of Orissa addressed a bail application by juveniles accused of drug possession. Rejecting immediate bail due to criminal antecedents and statutory bars, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months of framing charges.

What did the court decide?

Trial concluded trial within six months of charge framing; bats renewable if trial not concluded.

Dayanidhi Kanhar Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLA No.1137 of 2023

¶3

Dayanidhi Kanhar & …. another

¶4

Appellants

¶5

Mr. M. R. Badajena, Advocate

-versus-

Order No.

State of Odisha

¶10

…. Respondent

¶11

Mr. P.B. Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
27.02.2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the State.

¶12

This is an appeal under section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in connection with Manamunda P.S. Case No.70 of 2023 corresponding to Special Case (PCR) NO.01 of 2023 (J.C.Case No.06 of 2023) pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Presiding Officer, Children’s Court, Boudh for offences punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act read with section 25(I-A) of the Arms Act.

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

The appellants moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cumPresiding Officer, Children’s Court, Boudh, which was rejected on 11.09.2023.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are juveniles and they are detained in the observation home since 28.02.2023 and though it is a case of seizure of commercial quantity of ganja from the possession of the appellants but in view of the provisions under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the bail application of the appellants may be favourably considered, as there is no reasonable ground for believing that the release of the appellants is likely to bring them home into association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that not only in view of huge quantity of ganja seized from the possession of the appellants, bar under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is applicable but also it appears from the social investigation report, which has been noted down in the rejection order that appellant no.2 Aruna Kanhar (CICL) and his family were doing ganja business and he is a drop out of class-VIII and was

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

// 3 //

¶19

engrained in illegal business with support of his family members. It further reveals that the appellant no.1 Dayanidhi Kanhar (CICL) is related to appellant no.2 and he is also a drop out of class-VIII and was working as a daily labourer and sometimes engaged in illegal business with friends and both of the appellants have criminal antecedents relating to commission of offences of alike in nature.

¶20

In view of the available materials on record, the commercial quantity of ganja seized from the possession of the appellants, bar under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and availability of criminal antecedents against the appellants, while not inclining to release them on bail, I direct the learned trial Court, i.e., learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Presiding Officer, Children’s Court, Boudh in Special Case (PCR) No.01 of 2023 (NDPS Act) to expedite the framing of charge, if not already done and try to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of framing of charge. The appellants are at liberty to renew their prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period .

¶21

The CRLA stands disposed of.

¶22

The order be communicated to the learned trial Court forthwith by the learned Registrar (Judicial) immediately through e-mail.

( S.K. Sahoo)

Judge

M.K.Rout

Page 3 of 3

// 4 //

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 01-Mar-2024 16:42:26

¶30

Page 4 of 3

Dayanidhi Kanhar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayanidhi Kanhar 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

Soumya Ranjan Jena@Tapua Vs State of Odisha

Mitu@Murali Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Damayanti Sia Vs State of Odisha

Jitendra Polai Vs State of Odisha

Binod @ Srimanta Rana Vs State of Odisha

Kalia@Bhabani Sankar Nath Vs State of Odisha