The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.11028 of 2022 K. Veera Anjeneyulu …. Petitioner State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 01.05.2023 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Perused the F.I.R., case diary and other relevant documents as well as statements of the witnesses. 3. This is an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The Petitioner is an accused in 2(a)C.C. Case No.39 of 2021(N) arising out of P.R. Case No.94 of 2021-22 dt.16.06.2021 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 5. The prosecution case as revealed from the case is that on 16.06.2021 at about 10.00 A.M. the informant Excise Officer along // 2 // with his staff while conducting patrolling duty at Mahuri Kalua Sqaure one TATA ACE HT Dala vehicle bearing Registrtion No.AP- 39X-2875 was coming from Digapahandi side and it is alleged that on suspicion the vehicle was intercepted and the present accused was found to have driving the same. It is alleged that the vehicle was loaded with 10 sacks of Ganja and upon serach, each of the above sacks found 15 kilograms of Ganja and in total seized containing 150 Kg. Ganja. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 16.06.2021. He further submitted that after filing of the charge-sheet although the trial has been commenced. However, the trial is progressing at the very slow pace. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the petitioner does not have similar criminal antecedent involving offences under the NDPS Act. It was also contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a poor driver of the vehicle, is in custody almost two years. As a result of which the whole family of the petitioner is suffering. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as would be deemed fit and proper. 7. Leaned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand opposes the bail application filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner was arrested from the spot. He further submitted that considering the quantity of Ganja seized that is 150 Kg. the Bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted to the facts of the present case. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel also contended that keeping in view the fact that the case of the illegal transportation of Ganja is rising in the State and no leniency should // 3 // be shown to the Petitioner while the considering the bail application. Accordingly, he submitted that the bail application of the Petitioner be rejected. 8. During pendency of the bail application this Court call for a report from the trial court that is second Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Berhampur. The report dated 4.4.2023 has been received and the same is on record. On perusal of the record submitted by learned court in seisin over the matter it appears that the charge has been framed on 25.07.2022 till 04.04.2023. The report reveals the two prosecution witnesses have been examined out of three witnesses. Further, in the said report it has indicated that the Court remains vacant since 04.11.2022 in the absence of the Presiding Officer. Taking into consideration such fact, this Court is of the view that the trial is being unnecessary prolonged on the accused-petitioner is lying in custody. Therefore, the delay has called hardship to the accused and has affective his right of speedy trial as directed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid view of this Court has also been taken a note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2023 decided on 28.03.2023. 9. Considering such submission made by learned counsels appearing for the parties and upon a conspectus surrounding facts and circumstances further keeping in view the fact that the petitioner in custody since 16.06.2021 and there is no Presiding Officer at the moment, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter subject to the following // 4 // conditions:- I. The Petitioner shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature; II. he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever; III. he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial; IV. he shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a month preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till conclusion of trial; and V. he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court in seisin over the matter and shall furnish his address and mobile number to the police from time to time. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 10. It is open for the court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. 11. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to the condition that learned court below shall verify whether the Petitioner has any criminal antecedents of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner has any criminal antecedents, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. // 5 // 12. The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Anil ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Date: 2023.05.05 18:56:35 +05'30' ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge