Disposed¶31

Gopal Krushna Gouda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 May 2025BLAPL/4156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; BLAPL No.4156 of 2025; Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra; order dated 09.05.2025; bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.; Section 21(b) NDPS Act; 43 grams heroin below commercial quantity; District Mobile Khordha P.R. No.177 of 2024-25; T.R. Case No.608 of 2024; custody since 18.11.2024; charge sheet 18.01.2025; charge framed 03.04.2025; earlier rejection in BLAPL No.12472 of 2024 dated 20.03.2025; bail conditions incl. weekly reporting to I.I.C.; BLAPL disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions of the trial Court and six additional conditions imposed by this Court, including weekly appearance before the I.I.C. for at least six months and liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail upon violation of any condition. ¶31

Gopal Krushna Gouda Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act with an alleged recovery of 43 grams of heroin (below commercial quantity) and in custody since 18.11.2024, should be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. after framing of charge.

¶12

Court's answer

Having regard to the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner, his custody since 18.11.2024, the earlier liberty granted by the Coordinate Bench to renew the bail plea after framing of charge, and the fact that charge was framed on 03.04.2025, the Court was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter on such terms and conditions as it deems just and proper, subject to additional conditions: weekly appearance before the I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station every Sunday between 10.00 A.M. and 12.00 P.M. for at least six months; not leaving the jurisdiction of the trial Court till disposal of the trial; appearance before the trial Court on each date posted for trial; not tampering with evidence; not committing any offence while on bail; and release subject to verification of similar type of antecedents. On violation of any bail condition even on a single occasion, the prosecution may move for cancellation of bail before the Court below.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to the accused in an NDPS case (Section 21(b)) involving alleged recovery of 43 grams of heroin, a quantity much below the commercial quantity, where the petitioner was in judicial custody since 18.11.2024, the charge sheet was filed on 18.01.2025, and charges were framed on 03.04.2025 pursuant to liberty earlier granted by a Coordinate Bench (order dated 20.03.2025 in BLAPL No.12472 of 2024) to renew the bail plea after framing of charge. Release made subject to conditions including weekly appearance before the I.I.C. for at least six months, restriction to the trial Court's jurisdiction, attendance on all trial dates, non-tampering with evidence, and no fresh offences; prosecution permitted to seek cancellation of bail for violation of any condition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.4156 of 2025

¶3

Gopal Krushna Gouda …. Petitioner(s) Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha

¶6

…. Opp. Party(s) Mr. S.N. Biswal, ASC

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER

09.05.2025

01.

1 . The petitioner is accused in connection with District Mobile Khordha P.R. No.177 of 2024-25 corresponding to T.R. Case No.608 of 2024 registered for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the Court of the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner had approached the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.608 of 2024 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 03.04.2025 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail.

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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.

¶16

3. The prosecution case is that on 18.11.2024 morning, while the informant and his team were performing excise patrolling duty at Raja bazar, Fish market, Jatni, received credible information regarding selling of heroin by the accused person. To verify the veracity of the information, the informant and his team proceeded to the spot, detained the accused and during search, 43 grams of heroin was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. The accused failed to produce any authority or license for possessing the same. During interrogation, the accused confessed that he is habitually doing this business for financial gain. Hence, the FIR.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, 43 grams of heroin has been allegedly recovered from the present petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since 18.11.2024. He further submits that earlier the petitioner approached this Court by filing BLAPL No.12472 of 2024 and the Coordinate Bench of this Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 20.03.2025, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to renew the bail plea after framing of charge. He submits that in the present case charge sheet has already been filed on 18.01.2025 and subsequent thereto on 03.04.2025, charges have already been framed against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offence under Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that from the possession of the petitioner it is alleged that only 43 grams of heroin has

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

been recovered, which is much below the commercial quantity. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.11.2024 and he does not have any criminal antecedents.

¶20

5. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that trial has just commenced and there are only four witnesses and, therefore the trial will not prolong in the present case.

¶21

6. Regard being had to the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner and the period of custody of the petitioner since 18.11.2024 and the fact that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court granted liberty to renew the prayer for bail after framing of charge and charge has already been framed on 03.04.2025, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶22

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:

¶23

(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 P.M. for at least six months;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

8. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

Ashok

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-May-2025 18:55:31

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Gopal Krushna Gouda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Krushna Gouda 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

Debendra Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Akula @ Akula Chandra Sethi Vs State of Odisha