P. Veer Satyanarayana vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 9995 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         BLAPL No.3594 of 2023

       P. Veer Satyanarayana                 ...            Petitioner
                                            Mr. P. Nayak, Advocate
                                 -versus-
       State of Odisha                       ...        Opposite Party
                                              Mr. R.B. Mishra, AGA

                                CORAM:
                         JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
                                 ORDER(ORAL)

24.08.2023 Order No.

11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with C.T. Case No.23 of 2023 arising out of Tikabali P.S. Case No.32 of 2023 pending in the file of learned Special Judge-Cum-ADJ, Baliguda, Kandhamal, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of NDPS Act, on the allegation of transporting 71Kgs of Contraband Ganja in three jerry bags loaded in the dicky of one Innova Car bearing Registration No.OD-15-V-7575.

3. In the course of hearing of bail application, Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to grant bail to the petitioner mainly on three grounds; firstly, lack of conscious possession; secondly, period of custody and lastly, conduct of the petitioner. In drawing attention of the Court to various judgments

rendered by different constitutional Courts, Mr. P. Nayak, submits that conscious possession itself means possession with requisite mens rea and in this case, a bare perusal of record would go to indicate that the petitioner's possession cannot be considered as a conscious possession, since the Contraband Ganja was allegedly recovered from the dicky of the vehicle, but the petitioner is the poor driver of such vehicle and he had no connection with the possession of Contraband Ganja, rather he was acting upon the direction of his owner, who might have transported the said article without the knowledge of the petitioner. Mr. Nayak also submits that the petitioner was earlier granted interim bail, but his conduct in surrendering to the custody after interim bail itself is a priceless and matchless respect of the petitioner to the law and, therefore, there would not be any impediment in granting bail to the petitioner by only taking into account his conduct. He further submits that the petitioner being detained in custody since 16.03.2023, is sufficiently being detained in custody and, therefore, the custodial period would also come to the rescue of the petitioner for grant of bail to him. On the aforesaid three grounds, learned counsel prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned AGA, however, by placing the seizure list submits that the quantity of Contraband Ganja seized in this case is coming under commercial quantity and the

petitioner having failed to discharge the satisfaction as required under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not entitled to bail, especially when the investigation is going on.

5. It is true that the conscious possession as brought to the notice of the Court involves requisite mens rea, but at the stage of consideration of bail more particularly when the investigation has not yet been completed, it would be premature to advert to such fact to precisely conclude that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of Contraband Ganja. At this stage of consideration of bail, the Court is required to see prima facie case against the person accused of offence. This Court is never reluctant to appreciate the submission of a young counsel in this regard, but the submission which may appear to be soothing to ear may not stand to the legal scrutiny of law. A bare perusal of record would go to indicate allegation of seizure of 71Kgs of Contraband Ganja from the dicky of the Innova Car, which was allegedly being driven by the petitioner at the time of detection and the recovered 71Kgs of Contraband Ganja is definitely coming under commercial quantity, but release of accused on bail in such cases requires satisfaction of the Court U/S. 37 of NDPS Act. A perusal of materials placed on record would go to indicate that the petitioner has not been able to discharge the conditions as enumerated in Section 37

NDPS Act, which is mandatorily required for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusation raised against the petitioner and keeping in view the mode and manner of recovery of Contraband Ganja from the vehicle which was found allegedly being driven by the petitioner at the time of detection and his consequent failure to satisfy the conditions as enumerated in Section 37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not at all inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after consideration of charge in this case.

7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Subhasmita

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Aug-2023 12:55:26