The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3341 of 2024 Sunam Gamango ..... State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Amit Biswal Opposite Party Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A.P. Das, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. 02.
Decision
ORDER 15.05.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with G.R. Case No.93 of 2023, arising out of R. Udayagiri P.S. Case No.95 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Paralakhemundi, for alleged commission of offence Page 1 of 5. punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)C of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. He further submitted that the Petitioner, who is a boy aged about 21 years, is languishing in custody since 14.08.2023 on being arrested in the present case. He further submitted that in the meantime the investigation has been concluded and final charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that as per the F.I.R., a total 74.400 Kgs. of contraband Ganja was recovered from the possession of the present Petitioner. The recovery of the aforesaid contraband Ganja from exclusive and conscious possession of the Petitioner is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of his argument, drawing attention of this Court to the seizure list, submitted that in the seizure list against the Column-2-Place of seizure and from whom seized, it has been stated that the alleged contraband Ganja was recovered at R. Udayagiri P.S. on being production by the Complainant. Further, in Column-5-Circumstances of seizure, nothing has been clearly mentioned with regard to the seizure of the alleged contraband articles. He further contended that the alleged contraband articles were seized from bushy jungle and the Petitioner who was nearby has been arrested on suspicion in Page 2 of 5. the present case. He also contended that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent and he is no way connected in the present case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Petitioner has been made scapegoat in the present case by the local police. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is a young boy and aged about 21 years and there is serious doubt with regard to the circumstances of seizure and that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent, the Petitioner be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that taking into consideration the quantity of contraband articles seized from possession of the present Petitioner, the Petitioner is not entitled to release on bail. He further submitted that since the alleged contraband article seized is more than the commercial quantity, the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would be attracted to the facts of the present case and in view of the twin conditions under Section-37 of the N.D.P.S. Act which the Petitioner fails to comply, the Petitioner is not entitled to release the Petitioner on bail. It is also contended that the illegal contraband Ganja is on rise in the State of Odisha. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to the persons who are involved in such type of offences. He further submitted that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, there is Page 3 of 5. every possibility he might abscond from justice which would cause delay in conclusion of trial. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture. 7. On a careful observation of the materials on record, particularly the seizure list, this Court is of the view that the seizure list prepared in a very casual manner by the concerned Inspector of Police. He further appears that in a case of this nature which provides a severe punishment, the police more careful while preparing such seizure list and narrated the circumstances of seizure properly. Since the narration in the seizure list creates a doubt with regard to the place of seizure, it cannot be decided at this juncture that the alleged contraband articles was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the materials on record and further taking into consideration the period of custodial detention as well as the fact that the Petitioner does not have similar criminal antecedent and in view of the above observation, I am inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. Page 4 of 5. 9. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. The release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to such other terms and conditions as would be fixed by the Court in seisin over the matter. 10. 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 has any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having any criminal antecedent involving the offence under the ND.P.S. Act, then this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. 11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 16-May-2024 14:02:17 Page 5 of 5.