JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.11829 of 2024 Imran Khan …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Paik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 20.12.2024 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.26 of 2022(N), pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, arising out of Golanthara P.S. Case No.108 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.. 3. 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. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned 3rd Addl. Page 1 of 5 Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Berhampur by order dated 22.10.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier the bail applications of the Petitioner were disposed of by orders dated 06.02.2023 & 11.05.2023 in BLAPL Nos.9126 of 2022 and 2130 of 2023 respectively. 6. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he along with the co-accused are found to be involved in the transportation of contraband to the tune of 300 Kgs. 70gms (ganja) which was seized from a Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Registration No.UP-11-BT- 7495. The vehicle allegedly stands in the name of the Petitioner. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2022. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the case at hand there is glaring violation of the Section 50 of NDPS Act and Section 41(B) of Cr.P.C. 9. The Petitioner also seeks release inter alia on the ground of procrastination of trial. 10. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail in view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act. Page 2 of 5 11. Taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding procrastination of trial, a report was called for from the learned Trial Court. The relevant extract of the report dated 18.12.2024 is culled out hereunder:- “On the side of the subject cited above, in obedience to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order no.3 dated 16.12.2024 passed in BLAPL No.11829 of 2024, I am to submit that, in G.R. Case No. 26 of 2022 (N) arising out of Golanthara PS Case No.108 of 2022 pending before this court, the examination of the I.O. namely Abhishek Pandav (PW.11) is at the stage of further cross-examination the from defence. Examination of the said I.O. was scheduled to be held on 05.09.2024. On that date though the I.O. was present, but a petition U/s.91 of Cr.P.C. was filed from the side of the accused Imran Khan to cause documents. production Subsequently, another petition U/s.91 of Cr.P.C. was also filed on behalf of the accused Suraj Prakash. After disposal of both the petitions vide order dtd.21.09.2024 the case was posted to 03.10.2024 for examination of the I.O. On 03.10.2024 again a petition was filed on behalf of the accused Imran Khan for adjournment of the case on the ground that assailing the said order dtd.21.09.2024 the accused preferred Crl. Rev. No. 566 of 2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. On certain of Page 3 of 5 the date fixed post puja vacation, the I.O. was absent due to his training at CAPT, Bhopal. Finally on 01.11.2024 the I.O. of the case was examined as PW.11 from the side of the prosecution. But, amid cross-examination of the I.O. as per the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the accused Imran Khan, the case was adjourned to 20.11.2024 for further cross-examination of the I.O. On 20.11.2024 and on the subsequent date i.e. 05.12.2024 again on account of non- attendance of the said I.O. his examination could not be conducted. Accordingly the date was adjourned to 18.12.2024 for further cross- examination of the said I.O. On 18.12.2024 though the I.O. was present in the court as per the summons, on account of absence of the accused Suraj Prakash, who was on interim bail, direction has been given for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the said accused, with notice to his bailors. Now the case has been posted to 10.01.2025 for production of the said accused Suraj Prakash. xxx xxx xxx 12. In view of such report, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the trial is lingering only on account of laches on behalf of the prosecution. Hence, balancing the rights of an accused for speedy trial and that of the community in terms of the prescriptions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act wherein twin bar has been imposed by the legislature and keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Page 4 of 5 of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673 which still holds the field that bail in an allegation under the Special Act is an exception to the normal rule that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application of the Petitioner. 13. Learned Trial Court is requested to conclude the trial at the earliest and take all the steps in accordance with law to segregate the case of the Petitioner in view of the fact that the co-accused Suraj Prakash has absconded. For the co-accused who had absconded the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 14. Registry is requested to do the needful. 15. Accordingly, the BLAPL stand disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Ayesha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Dec-2024 15:20:46 Page 5 of 5