Orissa High Court
Narendra Kumar Patra @ Anil vs State Of Odisha on 31 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.5264 of 2020
Narendra Kumar Patra @ Anil .... Petitioner
Mr.Ranjan Kumar Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Ms. S. Mishra, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
31.08.2021
Order No.
11. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with
Satyabadi PS Case No.177 of 2019 corresponding to
Special G.R.Case No.82 of 2019 pending before the
court of learned Special Judge-cum-District and
Sessions Judge, Puri, registered for the alleged
commission of offences under Sections 20(b) of the
NDPS Act, has filed this application under Section 439
of CrPC for his release on bail.
4. The brief fact of the case is that on 05.10.2019 at
about 6.00 P.M., the informant, who is the S.I. of
Police Satyabadi Police Station along with his staff
were returning after execution of warrants from Sukol.
On the way near Churali toll gate on New Jagannath
Road, a TATA Indica DLE Car bearing Registration
// 2 //
No.OR-02-AG-4930 intercepted them and went
towards Chandanpur side. On seeing the police party,
two of the culprits of the said car managed to escape
but the police party could apprehend the present
accused and another. On search four plastic bags
containing 85kgs 830gms of contraband 'ganja' was
recovered and seized from the possession of the
present accused and another. As the accused failed to
produce any document in support of possession of
such contraband 'ganja', he was arrested and
forwarded to the court on 06.10.2019 and he has been
in custody since then.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no
criminal antecedent against the petitioner. He further
submits that nothing has been seized from the
conscious possession of the petitioner and he had no
knowledge of the presence of contraband in the
vehicle. Moreover, the petitioner has been languishing
in custody since 06.10.2019. During this period only
two witnesses out of 17 witnesses have been examined
and therefore it is going to take a lot of time for the
trial to commence.
6. Learned Counsel has relied on the case of State of
Kerala and others vs Rajesh and others1, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has iterated that:
19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the
exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to
(2020) 12 SCC 122
// 3 //
the limitations contained Under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, but is also subject to
the limitation placed by Section 37 which
commences with non-obstante clause. The operative
part of the said Section is in the negative form
prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person
Accused of commission of an offence under the Act,
unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first
condition is that the prosecution must be given an
opportunity to oppose the application; and the
second, is that the Court must be satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is
not guilty of such offence. If either of these two
conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail
operates."
20. The expression "reasonable grounds" means
something more than prima facie grounds. It
contemplates substantial probable causes for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the
provision requires existence of such facts and
circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to
justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High
Court seems to have completely overlooked the
underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to
the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any
other law for the time being in force, regulating the
grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of
bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.
// 4 //
Similarly, the learned counsel has relied on the
case of Union of India (UOI) vs. Shri Shiv Shanker
Kesari2, wherein the Orissa High Court held that:
"11. The Court while considering the application
for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is
not called upon to record a finding of not guilty.
It is for the limited purpose essentially confined
to the question of releasing the accused on bail
that the Court is called upon to see if there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction
about the existence of such grounds. But the
Court has not to consider the matter as if it is
pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and
recording a finding of not guilty."
7. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently
opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail.
8. Considering the submissions made, facts and
circumstances of the case, it is directed that the
petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with
some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just
and proper by the learned court in seisin over the
matter with further conditions that:-
i. the petitioner shall appear before the
learned trial court on each date of
posting of the case;
ii. he shall not indulge in similar activities
in future and
(2007) 7 SCC 798
// 5 //
iii. he shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
9. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
10. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
( S.K.Panigrahi )
Judge
Gs
