The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4013 of 2024 1) Srikanta Kanhar 2) Santosh Kanhar 3) Uttam Panigiri @ Uttam Panigrahi 4) Markanda Kanhar @ Makaranda Kanhar ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Preetam Mishra State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – S.S.Mohapatra, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 27.06.2024 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners 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 Petitioners for regular bail in connection with SPL Case No. 115/2023 (NDPS), arising out of Boudh P.S. Case No. No.-307/2023, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Boudh for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/ 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Page 1 of 5. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are in custody since 06.09.2023. He contended that the investigation has been concluded and final charge sheet has been filed. Further referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R., learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 were travelling in Auto Rickshaw, which was being driven by Petitioner No.4. He further contended that the Petitioner No.4 is the owner of the Auto Rickshaw. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were merely the occupants of the Auto Rickshaw and they had no knowledge about the existence of contraband articles i.e. 104 kgs in the Auto Rickshaw. He further contended that the prosecution has not confirmed whether the recovery was made from the exclusive and conscious possession of Petitioner Nos.1 to 3. He further contended that the Petitioner No.4, although is the owner of the Auto Rickshaw and was driving of the same, he also did not have any knowledge of such contraband articles. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the Petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and they belong to the locality and there is no chance of absconding. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners be released on bail on any terms and condition which the Petitioners undertake to abide by while on bail. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Page 2 of 5. State-Opposite Party, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioners were travelling together in the Auto Rickshaw which was being driven by Petitioner No.4. He further contended that the Petitioner No.4 is the owner of the Auto Rickshaw and that all four persons were together and they were carrying ganja in two jerry bags in the Auto Rickshaw. Learned counsel for the State further contended that it cannot be presumed that the Petitioners were not having any knowledge about ganja which was being carried in the Auto Rickshaw. He further contended that alleged recovery of the contraband articles, which is more than the commercial quantity, attracts the bar under Section 37 to the facts of the present case. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioners be rejected at this juncture. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court observes that admittedly the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were the occupants of the Auto Rickshaw. It further appears that the Petitioner No.4 is the owner of the vehicle and he was driving the Auto Rickshaw. It is also clear from the case diary that there is no material which indicates that the transportation and presence of the ganja in the Auto Rickshaw, was within the knowledge of the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3. So far the Petitioner No.4 is concerned, the situation is different since he is the owner of the Auto Rickshaw and was driving the same, therefore he is supposed to know about the transportation of ganja. It cannot be denied that he had no knowledge with regard to the contraband Page 3 of 5. articles that were being transported in the Auto Rickshaw. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie view that the contraband articles which was being transported in the Auto Rickshaw owned by the petitioner No.4 and driven by him, was not within knowledge of the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who were occupants of the Auto Rickshaw. Accordingly, the bail application of the Petitioner No.4 is hereby rejected. So far the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, in view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions. 7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. 8. It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. 9. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 be subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are having any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are having any similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. Page 4 of 5. 10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Jun-2024 16:11:11