Rahas Bihari Chhatria v. State Of Odisha

Represented By Adv. – Mr. Trilochan Nanda Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. Samresh Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 20.01.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

This is an application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023 filed by the Petitioner for pre-arrest bail.

The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with P.R. No.163/2024-25 of Tusura Excise Station, District- Bolangir, corresponding to 2(a) C.C. No.47 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bolangir, registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Page 1 of 3. one of the co-accused, namely, Muna Deep was arrested from the spot and from his possession 30 Kgs. of contraband Ganja was recovered. He further contended that on being named by the co-accused, who was arrested from the spot, the Petitioner has been implicated in the present case. As such, the Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with the present case. He further contended that since nothing has been recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Petitioner, the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. Further, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the statement of the co-accused cannot be accepted as evidence, so far the present Petitioner is concerned. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any stringent terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the event the Petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail on the ground that investigation is still on. He further contended that considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegation, no leniency should be shown to the Petitioner.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination Page 2 of 3. of the surroundings facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. However, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner surrenders before the Court in seisin over the matter within a period of four weeks from today and moves an application for bail, the Court in seisin over the mater shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner in accordance with law on the same day. While considering the bail application of the Petitioner, the Court in seisin over the matter shall also keep in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31; and order dated 10.01.2022 in the matter of State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimuta and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.242 of 2022) and shall also take into consideration the fact that the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case and pass necessary order.

The Case Diary be made available to the concerned court to facilitate disposal of the bail application of the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the ABLAPL is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-Jan-2025 18:21:00 Debasis ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Page 3 of 3.