Orissa High Court
Dharmjit Sharma @ Chacha vs State Of Odisha on 11 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC NOs. 1675,1912,1466,1425,1423 OF 2021
(Applications under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 read with
Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act).
In CRLMC No.1675 of 2021
Dharmjit Sharma @ Chacha
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Padhy,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party : Mr.P.Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
In CRLMC No.1912 of 2021
Kanheya Singh
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
Page 1 of 13
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Padhy,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party : Mr.P.Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
In CRLMC No.1466 of 2021
Iswabandhu Nayak
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Padhy,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party : Mr.P.Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
In CRLMC No.1425 of 2021
Sundarlal Nag @ Nepal
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
CRLMC No.1675 of 2021 Page 2 of 13
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Padhy,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party : Mr.P.Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
In CRLMC No.1423 of 2021
Lalan Pandit
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Padhy,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party : Mr.P.Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
11.12.2021.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. In all these applications filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners, similar facts and identical
questions of law are involved. Therefore, all the five cases
were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment. In all these cases, the Petitioners have
prayed for being enlarged on default bail on the ground of
non-submission of charge sheet by Special Task Force,
CID,CB (in short, "STF"), Bhubaneswar within the
stipulated time.
Facts:
In CRLMC No.1675 of 2021
2. In this case the Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case
No.44/2020 corresponding to Nandapur P.S. Case
No.54/2020 in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Koraput, for the alleged commission
of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS
Act. It is alleged that on 27th July, 2020 upon information
received regarding illegal transportation of Ganja in a
Tractor being escorted by a Hero Honda Motor Cycle, the
Inspector of Police, STF lodged an F.I.R. before Nandapur
P.S. with request to do the needful. Basing on such F.I.R.,
the case was registered and investigation was taken up, in
course of which the accused was arrested and sent to
judicial custody. Upon completion of the investigation, the
I.O. has submitted charge sheet in the case. It was
contended before the learned court below on behalf of the
accused that as the STF had not submitted charge sheet in
the case, the accused persons are entitled to be released on
bail. Such application came to be rejected by the learned
Special Judge vide order dated 1st September, 2021.
In CRLMC No.1912 of 2021
3. In this case also the Petitioner is an accused in T.R.
Case No.44/2020 corresponding to Nandapur P.S. Case
No.54/2020 in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Koraput, for the alleged commission
of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS
Act. It is alleged that on 27th July, 2020 upon information
received regarding illegal transportation of Ganja in a
Tractor being escorted by a Hero Honda Motor Cycle, the
Inspector of Police STF lodged an F.I.R. before Nandapur
P.S. with request to do the needful. Basing on such F.I.R.,
the case was registered and investigation was taken up, in
course of which the accused was arrested and sent to
judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, the
I.O. has submitted charge sheet in the case. It was
contended before the learned court below on behalf of the
accused that as the STF had not submitted charge sheet in
the case, the accused persons are entitled to be released on
bail. Such application came to be rejected by the learned
Special Judge vide order dated 1st September, 2021.
In CRLMC No.1466 2021
4. In this case, the Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case
No.56/2020 corresponding to Adava P.S. Case No.85/2020
in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Parlakhemundi for the alleged commission of offence
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. It is
alleged that on intelligence report being received regarding
illegal storage of Ganja, the Inspector of STF took steps to
trace out such Ganja and found that the accused-Petitioner
and another person had stored the same in a concealed
manner. The Ganja was seized and the accused persons
were arrested. Subsequently, on 18th September, 2020, the
Inspector of STF lodged F.I.R. leading to registration of
aforementioned P.S. Case. Upon completion of
investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the
accused-Petitioner.
In CRLMC No.1425 2021
5. In this case, the Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case
No.52/2020 corresponding to Jeypore Town P.S. Case
No.219/2020 in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Koraput at Jeypore for the alleged
commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of
the NDPS Act. It is alleged that on 21st August, 2020 the
Inspector of STF received information about the illegal
transportation of Ganja in a Truck. As such, the informant
took steps for seizure of the Truck and lodged F.I.R. in
Jeypore Town P.S. leading to registration of the
abovementioned P.S.Case. Upon completion of
investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the
accused-Petitioner. The Petitioner being in custody filed
an application on 22nd July, 2021 with prayer for grant of
default bail on the ground that STF should have
investigated and submitted charge sheet in the case as the
alleged offence was detected by it. Learned court below
vide order date 11th January, 2021 held that submission of
charge sheet by Jeypore Town P.S. is not illegal and since
the same was done within the statutory period of 180 days,
the accused-Petitioner is not entitled to default bail.
In CRLMC No.1423 2021
6. In this case, the Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case
No.50/2020 corresponding to Borigumma P.S. Case
No.107/2020 in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Koraput at Jeypore for the alleged
commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of
the NDPS Act. It is alleged that on 19th August, 2020 upon
receipt of information about the illegal transportation of
Ganja in a Truck, the Inspector of Police proceeded to the
spot and intercepted the vehicle, seized the Ganja being
carried therein, apprehended the accused and lodged F.I.R.
before Borigumma P.S. leading to registration of the above
mentioned P.S. Case. Upon completion of the
investigation, the I.O., submitted charge sheet against the
accused-Petitioner. The accused, who was in custody, filed
an application for being released on default bail on the
ground that STF had not submitted charge sheet within the
stipulated time. Such prayer was rejected by the learned
court below on the ground that power of investigation
given to the STF does not bar the local Police from
investigating into the matter and since charge sheet was
submitted by the local Police within the stipulated period,
the accused cannot be said to have acquired any
indefeasible right for being released on bail.
7. Heard Mr. Manoranjan Padhy, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. P.Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel for the State.
Submissions
8. It is argued by Mr. Padhy that the State Government
having notified and authorized the STF to investigate
offences relating to drugs, the local Police has no
jurisdiction to do so. It is further submitted that in all the
cases at hand, the offence was detected by the Inspector of
STF, who informed their superior officer namely, S.P. CID
CB and, thereafter, seized the vehicles and contraband
being carried therein and also arrested the accused persons.
The informations so received from the Inspectors were
reduced into writing and entries made in the station diary.
Thereafter, the Inspectors lodged F.I.Rs before the local
Police Stations. Mr. Padhy would argue that once the STF
has taken charge of the case, the local Police has no power
to investigate since STF is a special agency created vide
Government of Odisha Home Department Notification
dated 11th September, 2012 having jurisdiction over the
entire area of the State. Since power has been conferred
upon STF by the Government to register and investigate
cases, the local Police cannot have any role to play in cases
detected by the STF. Thus, according to Mr. Padhy,
submission of charge sheet by the local Police cannot be
treated as a charge sheet valid in the eye of law. As a
corollary to the above argument, it is submitted that the
STF not having submitted charge sheet within the
stipulated period, the accused persons are entitled to
default bail as per the provisions of Section 167(2) of
Cr.P.C. read with Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
9. Per contra, Mr. Tripathy has argued that STF has been
constituted as the Special investigating agency having
specific role for specific matters. In this regard Mr.
Tripathy has referred to the Government of Odisha, Home
Department Resolution dated 17th February, 2012 relating
to constitution of STF and the functions and
responsibilities of its officers. Therefore, according to Mr.
Tripathy only because the STF lodged F.I.Rs. does not
necessarily mean that it is bound to investigate the offence
and submit charge sheet. Conversely, it cannot also be said
that the local Police did not have jurisdiction to investigate
into the offences on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by STF.
Findings:
10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners that STF is an establishment specially
empowered to investigate into certain types of offences
including drug related cases having jurisdiction over the
entire State. To appreciate such contention it would be apt
to refer to the resolution of the Government of Odisha,
Home Department bearing No.6891 dated 17th February,
2012. The said resolution refers to the jurisdiction of STF,
charter of duties, functions and responsibilities of
different cadres of officers of STF, location and induction
of personnel into STF. The charter of duties, so notified,
are as under:-
"(1)Act as a Nodal agency in the State for
dealing with organized crime.
(2)Collection of intelligence pertaining to
organized crime.
(3) Interaction with Special Task Force of other
States and agencies of Government of India
involved in combating organized crime.
(4)Preparation of the periodic review reports and
other Special Reports pertaining to organized
crime in Odisha.
(5) Effective action (Investigation, prosecution,
intelligence collection) against following types
of organized crime and criminals.
* Inter district gangs of organized criminals
involved in tender fixing, extortion and related
offences.
*Inter district gangs of robbers.
*Inter district gangs of Drug peddlers.
*Inter district gang of kidnappers/abductors for
ransom
*Gangs involved in illicit supply of Arms,
ammunition and explosives to criminal elements.
*Gangs involved in trade of human organs".
11. By another Notification of Government of Odisha in
Home Department dated 11th September, 2012, the office
of the S.P., Special Task Force CID, CB, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar was declared as a Police Station to be known
as Special Tax Force P.S. having jurisdiction over the
entire areas of the Sate. The said Notification reads as
under:-
"In exercise of powers conferred by
Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
the State Government do hereby declare
the office of the Superintendent of
Police, Special Task Force, Criminal
Investigation Department, Crime
Branch, Odisha, Bhubaneswar as a
Police Station to be known "Special
Task Force Police Station" which shall
within its jurisdiction, including the
entire areas of the State of Odisha for
the purpose of registration, investigation
and prosecution of organized crime and
direct that the said Police Station shall
come into force on the date of
publication of this Notification in the
Odisha Gazette".
12. From a joint reading of Resolution dated 17th
February, 2012 and the Notification dated 11th September,
2012, it is evident that power has been conferred upon the
STF P.S. for the purpose of registration, investigation and
prosecution of organized crime.
13. In the present context, "organized crime" shall
obviously refer to those crimes enumerated under Sl.
No.(5) of the charter of duties quoted hereinabove. It is
evident that STF has jurisdiction in respect of inter State
gangs of drug peddlers. It is not the case of the Petitioners
nor there is any material on record to even remotely
suggest that the alleged offences in all five cases at hand
were in any manner perpetrated in the form of "organized
crime" nor do they have any inter district/State
ramification. In this regard, it has been argued by learned
Addl. Standing Counsel that STF has been created as a
separate wing to investigate "organized crimes" like
extortion relating to tender-fixing having inter
district/State ramifications by gangs, inter district
kidnappers, gangs involved in the illicit supply of arms
and ammunitions and explosives etc. Therefore, after
detection of crimes, if it is found that the same do not
involve any inter district/State ramification or any
hardcore criminals or gangsters, such cases are handed
over to the local Police having jurisdiction to investigate.
Therefore, the contention that the F.I.Rs. having been
lodged by the Inspector of STF, it was duty bound to
investigate seems fallacious in view of the discussion
made above. It is the settled principle of law that an F.I.R.
being intended to set the criminal law into motion, can be
lodged by any person including a Police Officer. In the
event, an F.I.R. is lodged by a Police Officer, there is no
law which mandates that investigation must also be
conducted by him. So, only because the concerned
Inspectors of STF detected the crime and even took
certain preliminary steps to apprehend the culprits
and seize the contraband etc. does not mean that only
they could have investigated the offences and none else
could have done so.
14. In the cases at hand, the concerned local Police
Stations have acted upon the F.I.R. lodged by the
respective Inspectors of STFS and have also submitted
charge sheets under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. read with
Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act within the stipulated
time. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that
such charge sheets are non-est in the eye of law, for which
the accused persons are entitled to be enlarged on default
bail.
15. Having regard to the discussion made hereinbefore, it
is evident that the contentions advanced on behalf of the
Petitioners being untenable in law cannot, therefore, be
accepted. Resultantly, it is held that the prayers for being
released on default bail are also rendered untenable.
16. In the result, this Court finds no merit in the CRLMCs,
which are accordingly dismissed.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
