JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 4819 of 2024 A (Avula)Rajeev …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC BLAPL No. 4839 of 2024 Rajmandri Karthik …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC BLAPL No. 5202 of 2024 Balu Jadab …. Petitioner Mr. N.R. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC Page 1 of 7 CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. 03. 1.
Decision
ORDER 25.07.2024 Since all the BLAPLs relate to the same P.S. (Kalimela P.S. Case No.122 of 2023), on the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as State, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioners are accused in connection with Spl. G.R. Case No.130 of 2023, pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge, Malkangiri, arising out of Kalimela P.S. Case No.122 of 2023 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29/27-A of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPLs, no other bail applications of the Petitioners relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Malkangiri by order Page 2 of 7 dated 11.04.2024 in the aforementioned cases, the present BLAPLs have been filed. 6. The Petitioner (A (Avula) Rajeev) in BLAPL No.4819 of 2024 was before this Court in BLAPL No.6930 of 2023 which was disposed of by order dated 30.06.2023. Thereafter, he moved this Court in BLAPL No.13831 of 2023 which was disposed of by order dated 09.02.2024. Hence, this is the third journey of the Petitioner (A (Avula) Rajeev) to this Court. 7. The Petitioner (Rajmandri Karthik) in BLAPL No.4839 of 2024 was before this Court in BLAPL No.7201 of 2023 which was disposed of on 10.07.2023. Thereafter, he had moved this Court in BLAPL No.1116 of 2024 which was disposed of on 19.03.2024. Hence, this is the third journey of the Petitioner (Rajmandri Karthik) to this Court. 8. The Petitioner (Balu Jadab) in BLAPL No.5202 of 2024 was before this Court in BLAPL No.11847 of 2023 which was disposed of by order dated 30.10.2023. Thereafter, he had moved this Court in BLAPL No.13840 of 2023 which was disposed of by order dated 09.02.2024. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioners are in custody since 25.05.2023 on the Page 3 of 7 allegation that they were involved in transportation of contraband (ganja) to the tune of 103 kgs. 10. Learned counsel seeks release of the Petitioners primarily on the ground of procrastination of trial. 11. To fortify their submission that in case of procrastination of trial, the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act ought not to deter this Court from considering the bail application of the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioners rely on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 and case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2023 SC 1648 and case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 534 (Criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024 disposed of on 18.07.2024). 12. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail in view of the bar contained in Sections 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and also relies on the order 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. Page 4 of 7 13. On instruction, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are the first offenders and the affidavit on behalf of the Petitioners (A Avula) Rajeev and Rajmandri Karthik) in BLAPL Nos.4819 of 2024 and 4839 of 2024, relating to their criminal antecedent, filed in the Registry is taken on record. It is also submitted that affidavit relating to the criminal antecedent of the Petitioner (Balu Jadab) in BLAPL No.5202 of 2024 has already been submitted in the Registry. 14. Learned counsel for the State further opposes the prayer for bail inter alia on the ground that they are flight risk and since do not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin, it would not be possible to secure their attendance during the currency of trial. 15. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners regarding the procrastination of trial, this Court called for a report. The said report is extracted hereunder; “xxx xxx xxx Respectfully, with reference the subject cited above, I am to submit that out of 17 (seventeen) charge sheeted witnesses, none of the witnesses has been examined by the prosecution. Now to Page 5 of 7 the case stands posted to 23.08.2024 for hearing. xxx xxx xxx” 16. Taking note of the same and that trial has not commenced and the Petitioners are in custody for more than one year and are the first offenders, this Court directs the Petitioners to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin. 17. Before releasing, learned Court in seisin is requested to verify the criminal antecedents of the Petitioners from their parent police stations i.e. Petitioners (A (Avula) Rajeev and Rajmandri Karthik) from P.S. Tenali, Dist-Guntur, Andhra Pradesh and Petitioner (Balu Jadab) from P.S.-Bhum, Dist- Usmanabad, State-Maharashtra. If it comes to the fore that the Petitioners have any criminal antecedent, this order shall not be given effect to. 18. To allay the legitimate apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding ensuring the presence of the Petitioners during investigation 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. Page 6 of 7 Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin. 19. It is further directed that one of the family member of each of the Petitioners shall execute P.R bond in addition to the sureties so fixed. 20. Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of. 21. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Jul-2024 13:35:21 Page 7 of 7