Sanjay Ray v. State of Odisha
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V NARASINGH
Provisions considered
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 20(b)(ii)(c), 29, 37(1)(b)(ii)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 294, 323, 506
Judgment
Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and ORDER 12.09.2024 learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No.57 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati, at Paralakhemundi arising out of Adva P.S. Case No.82 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Gajapti by order dated 23.04.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
This is the fourth journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier bail application of the Petitioner i.e. BLAPL No.8444 of 2023 was disposed of as withdrawn by order dated 25.08.2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner had moved this Court in BLAPL No. 12553 of 2023 in which he was directed to be released on bail by order dated 14.12.2023 subject to verification of criminal antecedent.
Since it came to the fore that the Petitioner has two criminal antecedents, learned Court in seisin rejected his bail application.
Thereafter, the Petitioner had moved this Court in BLAPL No.894 of 2024 which was disposed of as withdrawn by order dated 07.03.2024. Hence the present bail application.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2023 on the allegation of being involved in transportation of contraband (ganja) to the tune of 45 kgs along with the co-accused.
It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, though trial has commenced, only two witnesses have been examined and as trial lingering, bail application of the Petitioner may be considered.
So far as the criminal antecedent is concerned, it is stated that the Petitioner has been cited as an accused in Guna P.S. Case No.610 of 2022, U/s.13 of the Public Gambling Act and Guna P.S. Case No.297 of 2022 U/s.323/294/506/34 of the IPC and it is also submitted that taking into account the nature of antecedent, the same ought not to deter this Court from considering the application of bail, on the ground of procrastination of trial.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail in view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and also that the Petitioner did not approach this Court with the clean hands. He also submits that the Petitioner is a flight risk.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there was no willful laches or negligence in not bringing to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner had criminal antecedents.
Taking into account the period in custody and the pace at which the trial is progressing, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.
To allay the legitimate apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding ensuring the presence of the Petitioner during trial since he does not belong to the State of Odisha, additionally, it is directed that Petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once every month on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Sep-2024 12:18:55
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.