JUSTICE v. NARASINGH ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4528 of 2024 Datta Bavan Kale …. Petitioner Mr. S. Manohar, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Maharaj, A.S.C. BLAPL No.6528 of 2024 Sitaram Kale …. Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. Manohar, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Maharaj, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Decision
ORDER 25.07.2024 Order No. 02. 1. Since both the matters arise out of Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.07 of 2022, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order on the consent of the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Page 1 of 6 3. The Petitioners are accused in connection with G.R. Case No.02 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, arising out of Chitrakonda P.S. Case No. 07 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/27-A/29 of NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPLs, no other bail application of the Petitioners relating to the aforementioned P.S. Case is pending in any other Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their applications for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Malkangiri by order dated 06.04.2024, the present BLAPLs have been filed. 6. This is the second journey of the Petitioner (Datta Bavan Kale) in BLAPL No.4528 of 2024 to this Court. Earlier the bail application of the Petitioner (Datta Bavan Kale) was disposed of by order dated 25.11.2022 by this Court in BLAPL No.6735 of 2022 as withdrawn. 7. This is the third journey of the Petitioner (Sitaram Kale) in BLAPL No.6528 of 2024 to this Court. Earlier the bail application of the Petitioner (Sitaram Kale) was rejected by order dated 06.02.2023. Thereafter the Petitioner moved this Page 2 of 6 Court in BLAPL No.9886 of 2023. Which was rejected by order dated 30.11.2023. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioners are in custody since 09.01.2022 on the allegation that they along with other accused were transporting of contraband to the tune of 800 kg 960 grams of Ganja. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners seek release primarily on the ground of procrastination of trial and submit that taking the same into account, this Court by order dated 26.06.2024 has released one co-accused(Achyut Pawar) in BLAPL No.4470 of 2024. Hence further continuance of the Petitioners in custody is not warranted. 10. To buttress his contention so far as parity is concerned he relies on the judgment in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, reported in 2022(10) SCC 51 relating to parity which is extracted hereunder. xxx xxx xxx “Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with the same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be Page 3 of 6 a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. xxx xxx xxx” 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer on the basis of order of rejection and he submits that merely because of procrastination of trial, the Petitioners are ought not to be released since there is “flight risk” and he also relies on the judgment 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 submits that in view of filing of the charge sheet, prima facie case is well made out against the Petitioners. Hence in view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act does not merit consideration in the case at hand. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also further relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in SLP(Crl.) No.4648 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024 and submits that since independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution and which weighed with this Court while releasing the co-accused on bail, the present bail applications of the Petitioners may be favorably considered. 13. He also urges the violation of statutory provisions of Section 42 and 52A of the NDPS Act and also places reliance on the recent judgment of the Page 4 of 6 Apex Court in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @Javed Ansari versus State of Uttrar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 534(Criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024 disposed of on 18.07.2024). 14. It is further submitted on instruction by the learned counsel that the Petitioners are the first offenders. 15. Taking into account the period in custody and since the Petitioners are stated to be first offenders and the snail’s pace at which the trial has progressed, release of the co-accused as noted, this Court directs the Petitioners to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned court in seisin. 16. To allay the legitimate apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding ensuring the presence of the Petitioners during trial since they do not belong to the State of Odisha, additionally, it is directed that Petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once every month 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 Court in seisin. 17. Before releasing, learned Court in seisin is requested to verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioners from their parent police station i.e. P.S.- Dhoki, Dist-Osmanabad, State-Maharashtra. If it Page 5 of 6 comes to fore that the Petitioners have any criminal antecedent, this order shall not be given effect to. 18. It is further directed that one of the family member of the Petitioners shall execute a P.R bond in addition to the sureties so fixed. 19. Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of. 20. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule. (V. NARASINGH) Soumya Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Jul-2024 14:04:17 Page 6 of 6