The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.7030 of 2024 Suku Muduli ..... State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Sr. Adv. –Mr. B.Pujari Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. Samaresh Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 03.12.2024 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the case diary as well as statement of the witnesses and other 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 Spl. G.R. Case No.163 of 2023, arising out of Chitrakonda P.S.Case No.146 of 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) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since Page 1 of 4. 06.08.2023.Being aggrieved by the order of rejection 18.06.2024 passed in G.R. Case No.163 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri thereby rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present bail application for his release on regular bail. The prosecution case as revealed from the prosecution report is that the informant pursuant to the order of the IIC dated 05.08.2023, at about 3.30 A.M., along with his staff of Chitrakonda PS, was performing night patrolling duty. At about 3.30 A.M. on 06.08.2023, the informant received information from a reliable source that one person has stored a huge quantity of contraband ganja on the road side jungle near Silphandi village and is awaiting to avail a vehicle to transport the said ganja. On getting such information, the police team arrived at the spot. Seeing the police team, the present petitioner started running away from them, however he was eventually nabbed by the police. Thereafter, the contraband ganja was seized from the road side jungle. Accordingly, the present case has been registered as Chitrakonda PS Case No.146 of 2023 for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner was merely standing on the side of the road and started running after seeing police team. He further contended that nothing has been recovered from the exclusive possession of the present petitioner. The alleged contraband ganja weighing 602 kg was placed on the side of road near the jungle. He further alleged that there are also discrepancies while conducting the search and seizure, particularly the signature of the present petitioner. Although it is stated that the signature of the petitioner was taken on the weighment chart, however it was found that such weighment chart does not contain the signature of the present petitioner. He further contended that although the seizure was made from a public place however, the procedure as laid down in the NDPS Act has not been strictly followed by the police raid party. Page 2 of 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is an innocent man of the locality and he has no similar criminal antecedents. Further, referring to the period of custodial detention i.e. 06.08.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the investigation has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of an early commencement of trial, the petitioner be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions deemed proper by the Court which the Petitioner undertakes to abide by while on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to release the petitioner on bail. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State supported the rejection order dated 18.06.2024. He further contended that the petitioner was arrested from the spot and that a total quantity 602 kg. ganja was recovered from the road side-jungle. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted to the facts of the present case. 6. Considering such submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further on a critical analysis of the procedure followed in the present case, this Court observes that it is a matter of record that when the police team arrived at spot the petitioner was standing on the side of the road. Thereafter, seeing the police team the petitioner started running. Further, it is also clear from the record that the contraband ganja was recovered from the road side jungle. On a perusal of the record, it also appears that the learned trial court has categorically observed that the weighment chart does not contain the signature of the present petitioner. However, his signature is there on the seizure list. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discrepancies in the seizure, keeping in view the fact that the seizure has been made from public place, the seizure of the contraband article from the Page 3 of 4. exclusive and conscious possession when the establish in the fact the bar under Section 37 has not been strictly applicable at this stage to the facts of the petitioner’s case. Keeping in view the period of custodial detention and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and that there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial and further taking note of the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. This Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 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 Court in seisin over the matter. 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 the court below shall verify whether the Petitioner is having any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedents, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. 10. The BLAPL 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: 06-Dec-2024 13:21:27 Page 4 of 4.