The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 6774 of 2024 Rahul Tiwari … Petitioner Mr. C. Samantaray, Advocate State of Odisha … Opposite Party -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 05.08.2024 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is the second bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Spl. G.R. Case No.38 of 2022 arising out of Tusura P.S. Case No.69 of 2022 pending in the file of learned Sessions-cum-Special Judge, Bolangir, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the allegation of transporting 61 Kgs and 200 Grams of Contraband Ganja in a white color Maruti Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No.OD-14-H-6689 along with co-accused persons. 3. Mr. Chandan Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K Gaya, learned ASC in Page 1 of 5 the matter and perused the record. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner apprises this Court that this is the second journey of the petitioner before this Court, but no bail application of the petitioner is pending before any other forum except this one. 4. It is brought to the notice of the Court that although the petitioner has been detained in custody since 25.05.2022, but the trial is yet to be concluded even after approximately for 2 years 3 months of the custody of the petitioner. Further as per the report of the learned trial Court, only 9 out of 24 charge- sheeted witnesses have already been examined till today. Further, it cannot be disputed that a coordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner in BLAPL No. 6140 of 2022 has directed the learned trial Court to expedite the framing of charge and conclude the trial within a period six months from the date of framing of charge, but the trial has not concluded as directed. In the said order, this Court has also granted liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period. Personal liberty of a person is not only sacrosanct, but also precious and everyday custody of the petitioner militates against the most precious Fundamental Right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the prosecution has not Page 2 of 5 yet brought any material to indicate that the petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature. It is no doubt true that the quantity of Contraband Ganja seized in this case is coming under commercial in nature and the provision U/S. 37 of NDPS Act may ordinarily be attracted, but when the State has failed to report any criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the trial is yet to be concluded, this Court considers it proper to dispense with the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act at this stage, especially when the trial is not concluded even after 2 years 3 months of the custody of the petitioner and it cannot be ensured that the trial would be concluded in near future. 5. For the reasons stated herein above and taking into account the long custody of the petitioner on the face of right of the petitioner as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits of the case grants bail to the petitioner. 6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)only with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case, Page 3 of 5 on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail, (ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance the are dispensed with. In case fails without sufficient Petitioner cause to appear in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law and in the Court (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by giving his present address of stay. (iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on 2nd Sunday of each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six (06) months from the actual date of release from the custody. The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated. It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake Page 4 of 5 of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for offence under NDPS Act on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. It is made clear that the Court in seisin of the case, while releasing the petitioner on bail must verify the residential proof of the surety by taking the help of local police, if required and such exercise must be completed within a reasonable period of not more than seven days of filing bail bonds. 7.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 06-Aug-2024 17:18:58 Page 5 of 5