ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 12525 of 2024 · Orissa High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SAVITRI RATHO
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 21(c), 29
Judgment
Petitioner Mr. Deepak Ku. Sahoo, Advocate State of Odisha Vs. ….. Opp. Party Ms. Sarita Moharana, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 10.01.2025 (Through hybrid mode) Order No. 05.
This is the second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Tamando P.S. Case No. 215 of 2023 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 425 of 2023 in the file of the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar registered under Sections 21(c), 29 of the NDPS Act.
BLAPL No. 3787 of 2024 filed earlier by the petitioner had been withdrawn on 23.08.2024 as he wanted to move for bail after examination of the independent seizure witnesses.
Thereafter, the petitioner had moved the learned Court below for bail and his prayer has been rejected by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar on 19.11.2024.
Mr. Deepak Ku. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meanwhile the two independent seizure witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case for which they have been declared hostile. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.08.2023.
In view of the commercial quantity of the brown sugar seized and as the trial has already begun, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.
The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed.
It is open to the petitioner to move for bail before the learned Court below afresh, in case there is undue delay in completion of the trial. Sukanta (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 10-Jan-2025 20:02:41
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.