The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5201 of 2024 Sudhir Guru ..... State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Sujata Jena Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – M.K.Mohanty, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 23.07.2024 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner for bail in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.26 of 2024, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Sonepur for alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii) (C), 25, 29 of NDPS Act. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2024. He further contended that the investigation has progressed substantially. Further, referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R., learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that keeping in view the quantity of ganja seized, i.e., 7 quintals 45 kgs, was seized. Further, referring to the allegations made Page 1 of 4. in the prosecution report, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that so far the Petitioner is concerned, only allegations is that the drive of the vehicle one Sailesh Mishra stated before the police that he was in touch with the present Petitioner, who happens to be the supplier of contraband ganja through his mobile number. The aforesaid statement of the driver of the vehicle is only basis of implication of the petitioner in the present case. She further contended that there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner was present at the spot of occurrence or any contraband article has been recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. In course of her argument, she further submitted that although the Petitioner is having two criminal antecedents, however, he does not have any similar criminal antecedent involving the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. She further submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the local police. She further contended that the Petitioner belongs to the locality, therefore, there is no chance of absconding in the event the petitioner is released on bail. Further referring to the fact that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent and the period of petitioner’s custodial detention, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any stringent terms and conditions which the Petitioner shall abide by while on bail. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Party, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that investigation is still on. He further contended that quantity of ganja which has been recovered in Page 2 of 4. the present case is huge. Therefore, the release of the petitioner at this stage would seriously jeoparadise the investigation on in the present case. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility that he might be involved in similar criminal offences. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that nature of allegation and the contraband used in the present case is itself a threat to the society. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture. 6. On a careful analysis of the materials on record, on a conspectus of the materials as well as surrounding facts and circumstances, this Court observes that no where it has been alleged that the petitioner was arrested from the spot or anything has been recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case. With regard to the information of the present Petitioner, the driver of the vehicle, namely one Sailesh Mishra, has named the petitioner as supplier, however, the said aspect can very well be examined during trial. On examination of further verification, it is found that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent and the investigation has progressed substantially. Taking into consideration the aforesaid grounds as well as materials on record, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions. 7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter subject to the following terms and conditions: Page 3 of 4. I) shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on bail; II) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever; III) shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I.O. as and when his presence is required and shall cooperate with the investigation; IV) shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each date without fail; V) shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till conclusion of the trial. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 8. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner be subject to the condition that the court below shall verify the similar criminal antecedent of the Petitioner. In the event the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent under the offences of NDPS Act, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. 9. BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 4 of 4. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jul-2024 13:19:59