State of Odisha v. Mr. A. Pradhan, ASC

Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. A. Pradhan, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER 15.02.2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in Special G.R. Case No.64 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned 2nd Additional District Sessions Judge, Puri, arising out of Baseli P.S. Case No.103 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, by order dated 19.10.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner has been taken into custody since 05.05.2022 on the accusation of possessing contraband (brown sugar) to the tune of 256 grams and charge sheet has already been filed on 18.09.2022 and trial has commenced. Hence further continuance of the petitioner in custody is not warranted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner painstakingly took this Court through the FIR, the seizure list and the evidence of P.W.1- Saraswati Rout and P.W.2-Paresh Chandra Acharya.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is glaring infraction of the mandatory statutory provisions and as such on a bare reading of the FIR, the charge sheet and the statement of the witnesses, it is manifestly clear that it is a case of petitioner being victimized and the case of planting the contraband.

This Court carefully examined the charge sheet submitted to and taken on record and the recitals in the FIR and other statement.

It is the statement of Additional Tahasildar, Puri Sadar, which on record. She has been cited as C.W.30.

On perusal of the said statement, it is seen that she has categorically stated that on search there was seizure of 256 grams of brown sugar from the present petitioner and two other accused namely, Raja Singh and Chandan Singh.

The contradictions and the discrepancies to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has so strenuously referred to cannot be taken note of at this stage when the matter is pending adjudication before the trial Court.

Even otherwise it is trite law that the violation of Section 42 and violation of the statutory provisions can also be agitated during the trial and in this context this Court relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vrs. State of Gujurat reported in (2011) 1 SCC 609.

Considering the materials on record this Court is not persuaded to direct the release of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer before the learned Court in seisin after examination of the Executive Magistrate referred to herein above. (V. NARASINGH) Santoshi Judge