The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5912 of 2024 Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Sukla ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Amulya Ratna Panda Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – P.C.Das, A.S.C.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 18.06.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner 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 Petitioner for regular bail in connection with T.R. No.50 of 2021, arising out of Machhkund P.S. No.49 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Koraput for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)C/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a young person who is aged about 25 years and he is prosecuting his studies. He further submitted that the Petitioner is in Page 1 of 5. custody since 4.6.2021, i.e., from the date he was apprehended from the spot while he was travelling in the vehicle, which was seized by the police on the allegation of carrying contraband articles. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner is no way involved in the crime. He was travelling in the vehicle as a passenger. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Petitioner does not have similar criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that some of the co- accused persons have been released on bail in the meantime. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352; Md. Raja & Anr. V. The State of West Bengal (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3133 of 2022, decided on 22.8.2022); and Hussainara Khatoon and Others (1) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81. By referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted where the trial is prolonged unnecessary. He further contended that in Md. Raja’s case (supra) as well as Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that delay in conclusion of the trial not only affects the right of the accused of speed trial as guaranteed under Section 21 of the Constitution of India, moreover, such right overrides the provisions contained in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In such view of the matter, it is submitted before this Court that the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case considering the fact that the Petitioner is in custody for almost 2½ Page 2 of 5. years. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that the Petitioners were arrested from the spot while he was travelling in the vehicle, in which, the contraband articles were kept. Therefore, he further contended that there is no denying of the fact that the Petitioner is not involved in the alleged crime. So far involvement of the present Petitioner is concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel for the State that the ground of presumption is the matter of trial and no presumption could be drawn by this Court at this stage. He also contended that the provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act also gets attracted to the case of the Petitioner and, as such, it is contended that unless this Court is convinced that the Petitioner is not involved in the case, the case the Petitioner cannot be considered for his release on bail. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a conspectus of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner is in custody for almost 2½ years and that trial has not commenced yet, this Court is of the view that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. As such, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to certain stringent conditions. 7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in Page 3 of 5. the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter . The release of the Petitioner shall also be the following terms and conditions:- I. The Petitioner shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature; II. he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever; III. he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial; IV. he shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a month preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till conclusion of trial; and V. he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court in seisin over the matter and shall furnish his address and mobile number to the police from time to time. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 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 is subject to the condition that learned court below shall verify whether Page 4 of 5. the Petitioner has any criminal antecedents of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner has any criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. 10. It is made clear that if the Petitioner fails to attend the court on the date fixed on a single occasion, this order shall stand automatically revoked and the learned court below is at liberty to issue N.B.W. against the petitioner forthwith. 11. The Bail Application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jun-2024 13:47:10 Page 5 of 5.