✦ Orissa High Court

Paduna@Padana @Padma v. State Of Odisha

ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 11663 of 2024A K MOHAPATRA3 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
A K MOHAPATRA

Key paragraphs

  • Para 88. With the above direction, the BLAPL is accordingly allowed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 20-Dec-2024 17:41:51 Page…

Judgment

Represented By Adv. – Mr. Guruprasad Behera Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. Samaresh Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 17.12.2024 Order No.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2.

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioners for bail in connection with Singla P.S. Case No.170 of 2021, corresponding to Special Case No.239 of 2021, pending in the file of learned Special Judge, Balasore, for commission alleged offences Section 20(b)(ii)B/21(b)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the records.

4.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are in jail custody since 5.11.2023. He further contended that in the meantime investigatin has been concluded Page 1 of 3. and final charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the principal accused, namely Chandra Mohan Jena, from whose possession the contraband articles were recovered, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.02.2022. So far the present Petitioners are concerned, it is stated that the present Petitioners have been implicated on the basis of the co-accused statement. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31, submitted that such statement of the co-accused is not admissible, so far the present Petitioners are concerned. He further contended that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal antecedent and they belong to the locality, therefore, there is no chance of their absconding.

5.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that a quantity of 2 Kgs. and 315 of Ganja and a quantity of 86 gms. of Brown Sugar have been recovered from the custody of the present Petitioner. However, he submits that if the Petitioners are released on bail, then stringent conditions may be imposed on the accused Petitioners.

6.

Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and considering the period of detention of the Petitioners, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) each with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Page 2 of 3. learned court in seisin of the matter. The release of the Petitioners shall also be subject to the conditions that they shall not involve themselves in any similar nature of offence particularly involving the offence under the NDPS Act, and they shall appear before the I.O. on every Sunday between 11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. once he comes out of the jail custody, till conclusion of trial.

7.

It is further directed that the court in seisin of the matter to verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioners and impose any additional condition(s), if situation so warrants. This order shall remain valid in the event the court in seisin of the matter is satisfied that Petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

8.

With the above direction, the BLAPL is accordingly allowed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 20-Dec-2024 17:41:51 Page 3 of 3.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Orissa High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 11663 of 2024). ← Search more judgments