JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 796 of 2024 Mukteswar Rana …. Petitioner Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. 04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
Decision
ORDER 12.04.2024 counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with Special G.R. Case No.15 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Padampur, arising out of Padampur P.S. Case No.79 of 2023 for commission of alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of the 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 Addl. S.J., Padampur by order dated 05.01.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2023 on the accusation that he along with Page 1 of 5 co-accused were involved in transportation of contraband (ganja) to the tune of 50 kg 480 grams. 6. It is stated that the earlier bail application of the Petitioner along with one co-accused Raju Bhoi was rejected by this Court by order dated 30.06.2023 in BLAPL No.6974 of 2023 since the same was prior to filing of the final form. 7. The subsequent bail application of the Petitioner i.e. BLAPL No.12009 of 2023 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 28.11.2023, inter alia, taking into account the criminal proclivity of the Petitioner. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that charge sheet in the case at hand has already been filed on 12.09.2023 and since there is no progress in trial and as the wife of the present Petitioner is also suffering from Chronic Kidney disease, his bail application may be considered. 9. Learned counsel for the State referring to the order of rejection opposes the prayer for bail. 10. It is his further submission that in the case at hand both the prescription under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are attracted since charge sheet has been filed indicating prima facie case and in this context he relies on the 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 and also refers to the criminal proclivity of the Petitioner as stated in the order of rejection. 11. Taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no progress in trial, a report was called for from the learned Court in seisin which, inter alia, Page 2 of 5 indicates that on 12.09.2023 final form has been received against the accused in custody showing three other accused persons as absconders without Chemical Examination report and NBW has been issued against the absconding accused and the case is now posted to 15.04.2024 awaiting execution of NBW against the accused persons, namely, Kapil Sing, Omprakash Padhan and Arabinda Bagha. 12. For convenience of ready reference, the relevant extract of the said report is culled out hereunder; “xxx xxx xxx With reference to the subject & memo No. captioned above. It is submitted that in SPL.G.R. Case No. 15 of 2023 U/s. 20(b)(ii) (C)/25/29 of N.D.P.S Act Out of 06 accused persons. 03 accused persons namely (1) Mukte @ Muketeswar Rana, (2) Raju Bhoi and (3) Laxminarayan Mandavi have been arrested in this case and forwarded to this court on the I.O prayed for 18.03.2023. On 08.09.2023 issuance of N.B.W against other three accused persons namely (1) Kapil Sing, (2) Omprakash Padhan and (3) Arabinda Bagha and the same is allowed. Accordingly N.B.W issued against the above-named 03 accused persons. On 12.09.2023 Final Form has been received against all accused persons showing the 03 accused persons (1) Kapil Sing, (2) Omprakash Padhan and (3) Arabinda Bagha as absconders without Chemical Examination report. It is further submitted that accused persons Raju Bhoi and Laxminarayan Mandavi have been allowed to go on ball by the order of the Hon'ble Court in BLAPL No. 12009 of 2023 and 14520 of 2023 respectively. C.E. report has been received on 08.01.2024 cognizance of offence U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of N.D.P.S Act has been taken on and Page 3 of 5 the same day. Till date N.B.W issued against the above named accused persons have not been executed. The undersigned will take every possible and necessary steps for early execution of N.B.W. Now the case is posted to 15.04.2024 awaiting execution of N.B.W against the accused persons namely (1) Kapil Sing, (2) Omprakash Padhan and (3) Arabinda Bagha. xxx xxx xxx” 13. Taking into account that while filing the final form, the prosecution has not filed the chemical examination report, obviously for which even charge could not be framed and trial is lingering. 14. Since the Petitioner is in custody for more than an year, taking note of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 and case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2023 SC 1648 and keeping in view the Petitioner’s right to speedy trial, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin notwithstanding the antecedents as noted by the learned Court in seisin. 15. Keeping in view the criminal proclivity of the Petitioner, additionally, it is directed that during the currency of the bail, Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any other offence and shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once every week on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the learned Court in seisin. Page 4 of 5 16. It is further directed that one of the family member of the Petitioner shall execute P.R bond in addition to the sureties so fixed. 17. It is needless to state that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of the bail application. They ought not to be viewed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner which has to be adjudicated independently in the impending trial. 18. 19. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Apr-2024 12:48:57 Page 5 of 5