The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2590 of 2024 Rajendra Kumar ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Sarbeswar Sahoo Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – A.P.Das, A.S.C.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 24.09.2024 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner for bail in connection with Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No-32/2021 corresponding to T.R. Case No-15/2021 pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Jeypore, Koraput for alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 24.02.2021. He further contended that the Page 1 of 5. investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed. Although the trial has commenced, however the same has not yet been concluded. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner, further referring to orders under Annexure-2, submitted before this Court that in the present case although there was a direction by a coordinate bench of this Court to conclude the trial within specific period of time however, the trial court has not been able to conclude the trial within the aforesaid stipulated period of time. He further submitted that the time to conclude the trial was extended from time to time by passing several orders on different occasions. On perusal of the record, it appears that by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2023 decided on 28.03.2023, this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024 called for a report from the court in seisin over the matter with regard to the progress in trial. A report has been received by the registry which has been placed as Flag-F on the brief. On perusal of the report submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore, dated 12th September, 2024, it appears that out of total eight prosecution witnesses seven witnesses have been examined so far. Further, learned court in seisin over the matter has expressed his anguish with regard to the nonappearance of the I.O. despite issuance of summons on several occasions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has further stated that all possible attempts have been made to conclude the trial but the trial could not be concluded due to non-attendance of the official witness like the I.O. On perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner is in custody for more than three and half years. Page 2 of 5. 5. So far the merit of the matter is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nothing has been recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the present petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the co-accused statement. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that taking into consideration the delay in trial and fact that petitioner is custody more than three and half years. The petitioner be released on bail on any stringent terms and conditions. With the aforesaid context learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi)’ case (Supra). 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the release of the petitioner on bail on the ground that the trial is at the fag end. He further contended that as per the report total seven witnesses out of eight witnesses have already been examined so far. Therefore, in the event the petitioner is released on bail at this juncture, the same might cause delay in conclusion of trial. He further submitted that since the petitioner does not belong to the state of Odisha there is every possibility he might abscond in the event he is released on bail by this Court. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the bail application of the petitioner be rejected at this juncture. 7. Considering such submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking note of the period of custodial detention of the petitioner – which is more than three and half years at this point Page 3 of 5. and, applying the principle laid down by the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi)’s case (Supra), this Court directs the that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond Rs.40,000/- ( Rupees Forty Thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter subject to the following terms and conditions: I) The Petitioner shall also file an affidavit before the Trial Court with regard to indicating there his residential details other details like Aadhar No., Phone No. before the jurisdictional police station & further release of the Petitioner shall be subject to verification of such details as would be furnished by any relative of the Petitioner in the shape of an affidavit. II) he shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on bail; III) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever; IV) he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each date without fail; V) he shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till conclusion of the trial. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. Page 4 of 5. 8. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the Petitioner is having any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. 9. BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2024 11:25:29