The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5053 of 2023 Sujit Kumar @ Singh … Petitioner Mr. R. Sarangi, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- … Opposite Party Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, ASC BLAPL No.5055 of 2023 Raju Kumar … Petitioner Mr. R. Sarangi, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- … Opposite Party Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 09.11.2023 I.A. Nos.1324 & 1325 of 2023 Order No. 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press these IA applications. Accordingly, both the IAs stand disposed of as not pressed. (G. Satapathy) Judge Page 1 of 6 ORDER(ORAL) 09.11.2023 BLAPL Nos.5053 & 5055 of 2023 Order No. 10. 1. Since both these bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with
Legal Reasoning
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These are applications U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Mohana P.S. Case No.65 of 2022 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act read with Sections 467/468/471/420/34 of IPC, on the allegation of transporting 109Kgs 300Grams of Contraband Ganja in a vehicle. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. R. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, learned ASC in the present matter and perused the record. 4. Pursuant to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, a report was called for as to the status of the case and, accordingly, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi has submitted a status report vide letter No.7048 dated 15.09.2023 to the effect that charge has already been framed against the petitioners, but only one out of 16 charge-sheeted witnesses has been examined till that day. It is, Page 2 of 6 therefore, very clear that even after custody of the petitioners for a period of one and half years, only one witness has been examined till today and there are 15 witnesses still remained to be examined, but this Court consciously note as to when the trial would conclude, is not known and is uncertain and it would not probably possible in a month or two. It is indisputable that personal liberty of a person is most precious right in possession of such person and that should not be interfered with lightly unless his detention is in accordance with the procedure established by the law. 5. Besides, on being asked, Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, learned ASC acknowledges that the police had registered case against three persons at the time of detection of Contraband, but charge-sheeted only against two persons(petitioners). Besides, it is also not disputed that the petitioner No.1, namely, Sujit Kumar @ Singh was the driver of the vehicle and Raju Kumar was an inmate of the said vehicle at the time of detection. 6. In the above background of long detention of the petitioners in custody without assurance of speedy trial, the conditional liberty would, however, supersede the embargo contained in Section-37 of the NDPS Act, especially when there is presumption of innocence available to every accused in a criminal Page 3 of 6 justice dispensation system and more particularly, when a person cannot be convicted unless he is found guilty of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. Since learned ASC has been heard in the matter, the first condition of Section-37 of NDPS Act is automatically complied with, but with regard to the second condition of that section, i.e. formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence, it would be improper at this stage to form any opinion, especially when the petitioners have already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one and half years. 8. This Court by taking into consideration the long incarceration of the petitioners and the presumption of innocence of accused in law as sated above considers that the rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act has already been diluted in this case. It is indisputable that the petitioners are the residents of Bihar and their attendance can be procured by taking proper surety from them. 9. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the rival submissions as above and regard being had to the long pre-trial detention of the petitioners, this Court grants bail to the petitioners. 10. Hence, both these bail applications of the petitioners namely Sujit Kumar @ Singh and Raju Page 4 of 6 Kumar stand allowed and these petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with two local solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) these petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail, (ii) these petitioners shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless their attendance is dispensed with, (iii) these petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case, shall these petitioners (iv) report attendance before the jurisdiction Police Station once in a month preferably on Sunday in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for one (01) year or till disposal of the case whichever is earlier, from the actual date of their release from the custody and (v) these petitioners shall inform the Court as well as the I.O. as to his place of residence during the trial by providing their mobile residential address, e-mail, if any, and other in support of proof of documents residence. numbers, The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioners unnecessarily after Page 5 of 6 recording their attendance beyond the time as stipulated. It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioners in future any offence under NDPS Act on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. It is made clear that the Court in seisin of the case, while releasing the petitioners on bail may verify the residential proof of the local sureties by taking the help of local police, if required to ascertain their proof of residence and such exercise must be completed within a reasonable period of not more than one week. 11. Accordingly, both these BLAPLs stand disposed of. 12. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Nov-2023 13:13:57 Subhasmita Page 6 of 6