Debendra Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

1 . The petitioner is an accused in connection with Boudh Excise P.R. No.35 of 2015-16 corresponding to Special Case (NDPS) No.2(a)CC 19(A) of 2015 registered for commission of the offence punishable under Section 21(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Boudh. The petitioner had approached the learned Special Judge, Boudh in Special Case (NDPS) No.2(a)CC 19(A)/2015 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 05.03.2025 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶18

3. The prosecution case is that on 30.11.2015, when the patrolling squad of the Excise Department was conducting their patrolling duty, on the way from Kantamal-Budhakhol road, they found two persons in one motor-cycle coming from the opposite direction. Seeing the Excise staff, the rider of the motor-cycle fled away from the spot but the pillion rider was apprehended. On search, it was found that the accused was engaged in illegal transportation of 50 kgs. of contraband ganja by the co-accused Meta Mallik. Hence, the F.I.R.

¶19

4. The co-accused Meta Mallik was apprehended from the spot and 50 kgs. of contraband ganja was seized from him. On his disclosure, the petitioner has been implicated.

¶20

5. The petitioner has been taken into custody since 23.01.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no conscious possession of the contraband article recovered from the petitioner, rather, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

co-accused from whose custody the contraband has been recovered the petitioner has been implicated. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail, as the bail under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act does not operate against him. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail and submits stringent condition of bail should be imposed to prevent the petitioner from indulging in the commission of similar nature of crime in future.

¶23

6. Regard being had to the period of custody of the petitioner since 23.01.2025, recovery of the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner and the fact that the matter is pertaining to the year 2015, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶24

7. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:

¶25

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 10.00 A.M. and 12.00 noon for at least six months;

¶26

(ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till the disposal of the trial;

¶27

(iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each date on which the case is posted for trial;

¶28

(iv) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

manner whatsoever;

¶31

(v) He shall not commit any offence while on bail,

¶32

and

¶33

(vi) He shall be released on bail subject to verification of similar type of antecedents.

¶34

In the event the petitioner is found wanting for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit.

¶35

8. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶37

Subhasis

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-May-2025 18:51:02

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Debendra Kanhar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debendra Kanhar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shree Monolithics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Director of Enforcement

Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Annapurna Behera Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Akula @ Akula Chandra Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Gopal Krushna Gouda Vs State of Odisha