The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5685 of 2024 Baireddy Manikanta Sainath ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Rajib Lochan Pattnaik Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – D.Nayak, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 19.06.2024 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate 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 Special G.R. Case No.192 of 2023, arising out of Chitrokonda P.S. Case No-173 of 2023, dated 13.09.2023, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C) & 27– A of the N.D.P.S. Act. Page 1 of 7. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any of the bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 13.09.2023. He further contended that taking into consideration the period of initial date of remand the charge sheet should have been filed within a period of 180 days as provided under Section 36A of N.D.P.S. Act. Since the charge sheet could not filed within the aforesaid statutory period of 180 days the petitioner moved and application for bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to order dated 21.03.2024 submitted before this Court that the learned court in seisin over the matter on careful examination of the materials on record and further taking note of the facts that the charge sheet could not be filed within the statutory period of 180 days released the petitioner on default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. However, while releasing the petitioner on bail the learned court below had directed the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each out of which one will be local surety. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there are two accused persons in the aforesaid case, out of the abovenoted two accused persons, one accused Ramdash Khilla whose released on bail on 21.03.2024 on furnishing the bail bond as directed by the Court vide order dated 18.03.2024. Since the petitioner could not furnish the bail bond he was not Page 2 of 7. released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner could not furnish the bail bond for release on default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C, he could not be enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved such application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and subsequent application for regular bail was registered as BLAPL No.155 of 2024, has been rejected vide order dated 17.05.2024 which has been assailed in the present bail application. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the petitioner as well as the co-accused Ramdash Khilla were released on default bail however the petitioner could not furnish the bail bond therefore he was not released on bail however other co-accused was enlarged on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing furnishing the bail bond although the petitioner ready and willing to furnish the bail bond however the same was not accepted by the learned court below on the ground that the charge sheet has already been filed. In the aforesaid context learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M.Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intellligence reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485. In the aforesaid judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that merely because there was a delay in complying with the bail conditions, it cannot be said that the right which accrued in favour of the petitioner by operation of the Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is completely wiped out. Page 3 of 7. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Party, on the other hand contended that the present bail application of the petitioner has challenged rejection of his bail application by the trial court. He further submitted that the earlier order of the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has not been given effect to as the petitioner has failed to produce the bail bond. Therefore, the order releasing the petitioner on the default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has elapsed in the meantime. He further submitted that the learned Court in seisin over the matter is not expected to definitely the petitioner comply with the condition imposed while enlarging the petitioner on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid context of the State refereed to the judgment in the case of Sumanta Sabara and another vs. State of Odisha reported in 2022 SCC Online Ori 578. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case and further taking note of factual background of the present case this Court observes that the issue involved in the present case has been dealt with by a coordinate bench of this Court Bhisma Behera vs. State of Odisha in BLAPL No.13079 of 2023
Decision
disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2024. The learned coordinate bench in an identical scenario by taking note of all the aforesaid judgments and a detailed analysis of the provisions of law, while Page 4 of 7. enlarging the petitioner on default bail, the learned trial court has not imposed any conditions. Therefore, the right of the accused to release on default bail and the prosecution also opposing release of the petitioner on bail in view of the provisions contained under the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court has to consider the constitutional guarantee provided to the citizens in the shape of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This aspect of personal liberty has been taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many judgments while considering the bail application of accused persons in similar types of cases. 8. In the aforesaid factual background, further taking note of the fact that the trial Court has not imposed any time stipulation for furnishing a bail bond and further keeping in view the fact that the denial of the right of the petitioner to be released on bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the petitioner has not imposed furnished a bail bond definitely affect his rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India. The State would be contrary to the spirit of the provisions contained in Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. On a careful analysis of the legal and factual background involved in the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned court below should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish a bail bond by extending the time limit particularly when the other co-accused persons has been given the benefit of default bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Court directs that the Page 5 of 7. petitioner be released on bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand) with one local solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter subject to the following terms and conditions: I) The Petitioner shall also file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating therein his residential details and other details like Aadhar No., Phone No. before the jurisdictional police station & further release of the Petitioner shall be subject to verification of such details as would be furnished by any relative of the Petitioner in the shape of an affidavit. II) he shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on bail; III) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to harass, threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever; IV) he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each date and shall appear before the court on each and every date without fail; V) he 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 Page 6 of 7. the trial. Violation of any of the aforesaid terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 9. BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2024 11:25:02 Page 7 of 7.