Orissa High Court
Dhiraj Kumar Turuk @ Sinku vs State Of Odisha on 29 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3195 of 2023
Dhiraj Kumar Turuk @ Sinku .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
29.08.2023
Order No.
06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case No.110 of 2022
pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Koraput, arising out of Pottangi P.S. Case No.129 of 2022
for commission of offence alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)C/29 of
the N.D.P.S Act.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail
U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Koraput by order dated 17.03.2023 in the aforementioned
case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is
in custody since 18.09.2022.
5. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he was a driver
in the Excise Department. The vehicle, which was allegedly
escorting the truck, was carrying the contraband (ganja) to the tune
of 803 Kg. 765 grams.
6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that
since charge sheet has been filed on 15.03.2023 and taking into
account the role ascribed to the Petitioner, his further continuance
in custody is not warranted.
7. It is stated that admittedly the vehicle which was being
driven by the Petitioner was hired by the Excise Department and
was being used by the flying squad of the Excise Department.
Hence, it is submitted that as the driver of the vehicle was engaged
by the Excise Department he was merely acting at the dictate of his
superiors and he cannot be saddled with the complicity of escorting
the vehicle loaded with contraband.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, relies on
the very statement referred to by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner i.e. Santi Marandi, C.W. 23. And, submits that it is
clearly borne out that on the appointed date there was no instruction
of the Excise Department to carry any operation. Hence, the present
Petitioner who was the driver had no authority to take the vehicle.
And, relying on the statements of Kapil Sahu and Pradeep Kumar
Dalei recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the confessional
statement of the co-accused Trilochan Ray Chetty submits that from
the CCTV footage and the CDR the complicity of the Petitioner is
clearly borne out.
9. Regarding further submission of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner relating to release of the co-accused by order dated
30.6.2023 in BLAPL No.6807 of 2023, it is stated by the learned
counsel for the State that the implication of the said co-accused
(Sarata Khara) was based on the statement of the co-accused.
Hence, ex facie Petitioner is not similarly circumstanced with the
co-accused who has since been released on bail.
10. This Court carefully examined the accusation vis-à-vis the
Petitioner. It is not disputed that the present Petitioner was not in
the truck from which contraband was seized and the Petitioner was
the driver and driving the vehicle at the dictate of the employer staff
of the Excise Department. Therefore, this Court finds force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious and exclusive
possession of the contraband. In this context, this Court relies on
the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh and
others vrs. State of Punjab, (2002) 7 SCC 419.
11. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the
Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent.
12. Taking note of the same, this Court directs the Petitioner to
be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in
seisin subject to the verification of criminal antecedent of similar
nature.
13. If it comes to fore that the Petitioner has any such criminal
antecedent, this order shall stand recalled.
14. Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear
before the jurisdictional police station once every week on such
date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till
conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be
submitted to the Court in seisin.
15. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
16. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the
rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
PKS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 30-Aug-2023 11:14:19
