Ramakanta Prasad vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 6836 Ori

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                        BLAPL No. 2127 of 2023

                     An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.


                     Ramakanta Prasad                                 .... Petitioner

                                                    -versus-
                     State of Odisha                                  .... Opp. Party

                                             -------------------

                           For Petitioner                    : Mr. S.R. Pati, Advocate


                           For Opp. Party                    : Mr. D. Nayak, A.G.A


                    CORAM:
                         JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

......................................................... Date of Judgment : 06.06.2023 .................. .......................................

Savitri Ratho, J. This is the third successive bail application under

section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in

connection with Ulunda P.S. Case No.27 of 2017 corresponding to

Special G.R. Case No.14 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned

Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Sonepur for commission of

offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short " the NDPS Act).

//2//

2. While dismissing BLAPL No. 11108 of 2019 filed by

the petitioner by order dated 25.10.2021, the learned trial court had

been directed to expedite the trial. In the second bail application -

BLAPL No. 1953 of 2022, I was not inclined to allow the prayer for

bail but while disposing of the bail application by order dated

21.07.2022, had requested the learned trial Court to conclude the

trial within a period of six months as the petitioner had remained in

custody since more than five years.

3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 reveals

that just after expiry of one month, the petitioner had moved the

learned trial court for bail and the prayer has been rejected the bail

holding that the earlier bail applications had been rejected five times

earlier and there was no change in circumstances to take a different

view, hearing in the case had commenced and the petitioner was a

resident of Sabahi Tarwah, Police Station - Turukpatti, District -

Kushinagar in Uttar Pradesh for which there was every chance of his

absconding and least chance of apprehending him and the ganja

seized was of commercial quantity.

4. When this case had been listed on 27.04.2023,

considering the submission of Mr. S.R. Pati, learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was in custody since 26.03.2017 and in

//3//

spite of order dated 25.10.2021 passed in BLAPL No. 11108 of

2019 and order dated 21.07.2022 passed in BLAPL No. 1953 of

2022 the trial was still lingering and out of fourteen charge sheet

witnesses, three witnesses had only been examined, a report had

been called for from the learned trial Court regarding the status of

the trial. Reports dated 03.05.2023 and 18.05.2023, received from

the learned Special Judge -cum- Sessions Judge, Sonepur reveal that

charge has been framed in the case i.e. 16.11.2018 under Section

20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act against the two accused persons in the

trial namely the petitioner Ramakanta Prasad and co-accused

Pradeep Kumar. Co-accused Pradeep Kumar has been released on

interim bail pursuant to order dated 26.11.2021 passed in BLAPL

No. 10737 of 2019 by this Court and he had directed to surrender on

11.03.2022. But as he did not appear on the said date, NBW of arrest

had been issued against him and the case has been split up against

him. In the present trial out of fourteen charge sheet witnesses, four

witnesses had been examined and summons had been issued, fixing

17.05.2023 for hearing. On 17.05.2023, two more witnesses had

been examined and summons had been issued against the rest of the

charge sheeted witnesses and the case was posted to 27.06.2023 for

hearing.

//4//

5. Mr. S.R. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is in custody since 26.03.2017 and out of fourteen

charge sheet witnesses, only six witnesses had been examined and

the petitioner was not responsible for the delay in the trial. He

further submitted that the right of speedy trial is available to the

petitioner as held in a catena of decisions by the Supreme Court.

Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Shaheen

Welfare Association vs. Union of India : (1996) 2 SCC 616 AIR

1996 SC 2957 ; State of Kerala vs. Raneef : (2011) 1 SCC 784, and

the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.

Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT OF Delhi) : 2023 (I) OLR (SC)

959, 2023 SCC Online 352, he has submitted that as the petitioner

has remained in custody for more than six years and the trial has not

been completed in spite of two orders of this Court in BLAPL No.

11108 of 2019 and BLAPL No. 1953 of 2022, he should be released

on bail without going into the bar contained in Section 37 of the

N.D.P.S Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.

Muslim (supra). He further submits that the petitioner has no

criminal antecedents of similar nature.

6. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the

State opposed the prayer for bail stating that 149 kgs. of ganja has

//5//

been seized in this case for which Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act

will be a bar for releasing the petitioner on bail. He has also

submitted the petitioner is a resident of Uttar Pradesh and the co-

accused Pradeep Kumar who is resident of District Kushinagar,

Uttar Pradesh had been granted interim bail by order dated

26.11.2021 passed in BLAPL No. 10737 of 2019 by this Court. He

had been released on 14.12.2021 and was to surrender on

11.03.2022, but he has not surrendered nor could the NBW of arrest

issued against him be executed. As the petitioner is also a resident

of Uttar Pradesh, if he is granted bail, it will be difficult to secure his

attendance during trial.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

7. Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985:

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)--

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

//6//

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.

As the allegation in the case is that the petitioner and

co-accused Pradeep Kumar were found in possession of 149 kgs. of

ganja, which comes within the definition of commercial quantity ,

the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

8. For dealing with the contentions of the learned counsels,

it would be apposite to refer to some of the decisions relied on by the

counsel for the petitioner and some others which are relevant for

deciding this application. The earlier view of the Supreme Court in

NDPS cases was that in view of the restrictions imposed in Section

37 of the NDPS Act, in cases involving commercial quantity,

//7//

"negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception". But this

view has undergone a change when it was found that accused

persons were detained in custody for long periods without being

tried or on account of delay in completion of trial.

8.1 The Shaheen Welfare Association case (supra) was a

PIL, where the petitioner had prayed for certain reliefs to undertrial

prisoners charged under the TADA and detained in jails for long

periods, the Supreme Court divided the undertrials to four

categories and laid down the norms for deciding their prayers for

bail , while holding as follows:

"When stringent provisions have been prescribed under an Act such as TADA for grant of bail, a conscious decision has been taken by the legislature to sacrifice to some extent, the personal liberty of an undertrial accused for the sake of protecting the community and the nation against terrorist and disruptive activities or other activities harmful to society, it is all the more necessary that investigation of such crimes is done efficiently and an adequate number of Designated Courts are set up to bring to book persons accused of such serious crimes. This is the only way in which society can be protected against harmful activities. This would also ensure that persons ultimately found innocent are not unnecessarily kept in jail for long periods."

//8//

8.2 In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad

reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673, while referring to Section 37 of the

NDPS Act, the Supreme Court has held as follows :

"The purpose for which the Act was enacted and the menace of drug trafficking which intends to curtail is evident from its scheme. A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in the mind of the court that a person accused of an offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant and exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for."

8.3 The decision rendered in Raneef (supra) is not strictly

applicable to this case. In that case, the State had challenged the

//9//

order of the Kerala High Court granting bail to the respondent, a

dentist who had spent 66 days in custody in connection with a case

registered under various provisions of the I.P.C., the Explosive

Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. While

dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court held as follows :

"In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail."...

8.4 Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs. Union of

India (1994) 6 SCC 731 had been initially filed by the petitioner

under Article 32 of the Constitution on account of the delay in

disposal of cases under the NDPS Act involving foreigners. The

application was thereafter amended and it was prayed that all under-

trials who were in jail for the commission of any offence or

offences under the Act for a period exceeding two years on account

//10//

of the delay in the disposal of cases lodged against them should be

released from jail declaring their further detention to be illegal and

void and pending decision of this Court on the said larger issue, they

should be released on bail. After discussing various provisions of

the NDPS Act and the pendency of cases in Mumbai, the Supreme

Court observed that since the number of courts constituted to try

offences under the Act were not sufficient and the appointments of

Judges to man these courts were delayed, cases had piled up and the

accused had to languish in jail as the provision for enlarging them on

bail was strict. Relevant portion of paragraph 15, paragraph 16 and

paragraph 17 of the judgment are extracted below :

... "We are conscious of the statutory provision finding place in Section 37 of the Act prescribing the conditions which have to be satisfied before a person accused of an offence under the Act can be released. Indeed we have adverted to this section in the earlier part of the judgment. We have also kept in mind the interpretation placed on a similar provision in Section 20 of the TADA Act by the Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab : (1994) 3 SCC 569: 1994 SCC (Cri) 899 .Despite this provision, we have directed as above mainly at the call of Article 21 as the right to speedy trial may even require in some cases quashing of a criminal proceeding altogether, as held by a

//11//

Constitution Bench of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak : (1992) 1 SCC 225 :1992 SCC (Cri) 93 11, release on bail, which can be taken to be embedded in the right of speedy trial, may, in some cases be the demand of Article 21 As we have not felt inclined to accept the extreme submission of quashing the proceedings and setting free the accused whose trials have been delayed beyond reasonable time for reasons already alluded to, we have felt that deprivation of the personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial would also not be in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21. Of course, some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided in such cases; but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 would receive a jolt. It is because of this that we have felt that after the accused persons have suffered imprisonment which is half of the maximum punishment provided for the offence, any further deprivation of personal liberty would be violative of the fundamental right visualised by Article 21, which has to be telescoped with the right guaranteed by Article 14 which also promises justness, fairness and reasonableness in procedural matters. What then is the remedy? The offences under the Act are grave and, therefore, we are not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that we should quash the prosecutions and set free the accused persons whose trials are delayed

//12//

beyond reasonable time. Alternatively he contended that such accused persons whose trials have been delayed beyond reasonable time and are likely to be further delayed should be released on bail on such terms as this Court considers appropriate to impose. This suggestion commends to us. We were told by the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra that additional Special Courts have since been constituted but having regard to the large pendency of such cases in the State we are afraid this is not likely to make a significant dent in the huge pile of such cases. We, therefore, direct as under:

(i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s) under the Act prescribing a punishment of imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half the punishment provided for the offence with which he is charged and where he is charged with more than one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment. If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount.

//13//

(ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs 50,000 with two sureties for like amount.

(iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount.

(iv) Where an undertrial accused is charged for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 31 and 31-A of the Act, such an undertrial shall not be entitled to be released on bail by virtue of this order.

The directives in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall be subject to the following general conditions:

(i) The undertrial accused entitled to be released on bail shall deposit his passport with the learned Judge of the Special Court concerned and if he does not hold a passport he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the form that may be prescribed by the learned Special Judge. In the latter case the learned Special Judge will, if he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement,

//14//

write to the Passport Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall verify his record and send a reply within three weeks. If he fails to reply within the said time, the learned Special Judge will be entitled to act on the statement of the undertrial accused;

(ii) the undertrial accused shall on being released on bail present himself at the police station which has prosecuted him at least once in a month in the case of those covered under clause (i), once in a fortnight in the case of those covered under clause (ii) and once in a week in the case of those covered by clause (iii), unless leave of absence is obtained in advance from the Special Judge concerned;

(iii) the benefit of the direction in clauses (ii) and (iii) shall not be available to those accused persons who are, in the opinion of the learned Special Judge, for reasons to be stated in writing, likely to tamper with evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) in the case of undertrial accused who are foreigners, the Special Judge shall, besides impounding their passports, insist on a certificate of assurance from the Embassy/High Commission of the country to which the foreigner-accused belongs, that the said accused shall not leave the country and shall appear before the Special Court as and when required;

//15//

(v) the undertrial accused shall not leave the area in relation to which the Special Court is constituted except with the permission of the learned Special Judge;

(vi) the undertrial accused may furnish bail by depositing cash equal to the bail amount;

(vii) the Special Judge will be at liberty to cancel bail if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out; and

(viii) after the release of the undertrial accused pursuant to this order, the cases of those undertrials who have not been released and are in jail will be accorded priority and the Special Court will proceed with them as provided in Section 309 of the Code.

16. We may state that the above are intended to operate as one-time directions for cases in which the accused persons are in jail and their trials are delayed. They are not intended to interfere with the Special Court's power to grant bail under Section 37 of the Act. The Special Court will be free to exercise that power keeping in view the complaint of inordinate delay in the disposal of the pending cases. The Special Court will, notwithstanding the directions, be free to cancel bail if the accused is found to be misusing it and grounds for cancellation of bail exist. Lastly, we grant liberty to apply in case of any difficulty in the implementation of this order.

//16//

17. We are conscious of the fact that the menace of drug trafficking has to be controlled by providing stringent punishments and those who indulge in such nefarious activities do not deserve any sympathy. But at the same time we cannot be oblivious to the fact that many innocent persons may also be languishing in jails if we recall to mind the percentage of acquittals".....

8.5 In the case of Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of

Narcotics, (2013) 2 SCC 603, the Supreme Court , while granting

bail to the petitioner who had been languishing in prison for more

than twelve years, in a case under the NDPS Act awaiting the

commencement of his trial , observed as follows :

"4. Time and again, this Court has emphasised the need for speedy trial, particularly when the release of an undertrial on bail is restricted under the provisions of the statute, like in the present case under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. While considering the question of grant of bail to an accused facing trial under the NDPS Act in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 39] this Court had observed that though some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided in such cases, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 of the Constitution would receive a jolt. It was

//17//

further observed that after the accused person has suffered imprisonment, which is half of the maximum punishment provided for the offence, any further deprivation of personal liberty would be violative of the fundamental right visualised by Article 21. We regret to note that despite it all, there has not been visible improvement on this front.

5. Bearing in mind these observations and having regard to the fact that in the present case the appellant has been in custody for more than 12 years and seemingly there being no prospect of the conclusion of trial in the near future, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where he deserves to be admitted to bail forthwith."

8.6 In Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Supreme Court

taking note of the continuous supply of cases seeking bail after filing

of the final report on a wrong interpretation of Section 170 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"

for short) issued certain directions for the investigating agencies

and also for the courts and referred to a number of decisions of the

Supreme Court as well as the High Courts including the case of

Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (supra).

8.7 In the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No. 6690 of 2022 decided on 30.05.2022),

//18//

commercial quantity of ganja had been seized from the petitioner

accused, and he was is in custody more than two and half years, the

Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 37 may ordinarily

be attracted . However in view of absence of criminal antecedents

and as the petitioner was in custody for more than two and half years

and trial was yet to commence, the condition of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act can be dispensed with at that stage and without

expressing any view on the merits of the case, the petitioner was

directed to be released on bail.

8.8 The Supreme Court in the case of Md. Raja and Another

vs. The State of West Bengal, (SLP (Crl.) No. 3133 of 2022),decided

on 22.08.2022, granted bail to the appellants who were facing trial

for being in possession of 414 kg. of ganja and had remained in

custody for more than four years , due to delay in commencement of

trial , without going into the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS

Act.

8.9 In the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain, while dealing

with the case of an accused who was in custody since more than

twelve years , after referring and discussing its earlier decisions in

the case of Hussainara Khatoon (supra) that Kadra Pahadiya &

Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 , State of

//19//

Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673, Supreme

Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Under trial Prisoners)

vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731, Shaheen

Welfare Association vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 2 SCC

616, Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713,

Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported

in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Union of India vs. Rattan Malik reported

in (2009) 2 SCC 624 amongst other decisions , has held as follows:

"18. The conditions which courts have to be cognizant of are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is "not guilty of such offence" and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. What is meant by "not guilty" when all the evidence is not before the court? It can only be a 18 As per the counter-affidavit dated 21.02.2023 filed by the respondent-state before this court. prima facie determination. That places the court's discretion within a very narrow margin. Given the mandate of the general law on bails (Sections 436, 437 and 439, CrPC) which classify offences based on their gravity, and instruct that certain serious crimes have to be dealt with differently while considering bail applications, the additional condition that the court should be satisfied that the accused (who is in law presumed to be innocent) is not guilty, has to be

//20//

interpreted reasonably. Further the classification of offences under Special Acts (NDPS Act, etc.), which apply over and above the ordinary bail conditions required to be assessed by courts, require that the court records its satisfaction that the accused might not be guilty of the offence and that upon release, they are not likely to commit any offence. These two conditions have the effect of overshadowing other conditions. In cases where bail is sought, the court assesses the material on record such as the nature of the offence, likelihood of the accused co-operating with the investigation, not fleeing from justice: even in serious offences like murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. On the other hand, the court in these cases under such special Acts, have to address itself principally on two facts: likely guilt of the accused and the likelihood of them not committing any offence upon release. This court has generally upheld such conditions on the ground that liberty of such citizens have to - in cases when accused of offences enacted under special laws - be balanced against the public interest.

19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as

//21//

enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik19). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of

//22//

bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry's response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31 st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country20. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.

23........ Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily."

8.10 In the recent decision in the case of Sebil Elanjimpally

vs. State of Orissa (Criminal Appeal No. 1578 of 2023 arising out

of SLP (Crl.) No. 3518 of 2023), decided on 18.05.2023 , the

Supreme Court has held as follows:

//23//

"In the case under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, where the accused was remained in custody for 2 years and 11 months and the prayer for bail had been rejected on the ground that the co-accused who had been released on bail, had not surrendered.

The impugned order shows that what has weighed with the Court is the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered. It is this factor alone which we can discern to be the reason to not entertain the bail application.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused, namely, the appellant.

And set aside the order rejecting the prayer for bail and directed for reconsider the prayer for bail by the High Court."

9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for

the respective parties, period of detention of the petitioner in judicial

custody and keeping in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court

referred to above, I am inclined to allow this application for bail.

10. Let the petitioner-Ramakanta Prasad be released on bail

on such terms and conditions as would be fixed by the learned trial

Court, after verifying that he has not no criminal antecedents of

//24//

similar nature either in Odisha or in Uttar Pradesh, including the

following conditions:

i) He will not indulge in any criminal activity while

on bail.

ii) He will not try to influence prosecution witnesses.

ii) He will appear before the learned trial court on

each date it is posted for trial.

iii) The petitioner shall furnish his details of his local

address and permanent address and active mobile

number to the trial court in the form of an affidavit

alongwith an attested photocopy of his Aadhaar card

and intimate any change to the learned trial court

immediately.

iv) He shall appear in the Police Station which has

jurisdiction over the place of his residence on one day

in the first week of every month.

v) He shall furnish his mobile number to the I.O. and

the IIC Ullunda Police Station and maintain contact

with the I.O. or the IIC Ullunda Police Station every

Monday between 5.00 pm to 7.00 pm preferably

through video call. Any change in the mobile umber

//25//

shall be immediately intimated to the I.O or the IIC

Ullunda Police Station.

vi) He shall not leave Sonepur District without prior

permission of the learned trial court and shall furnish

details of his travel alongwith contact number.

Violation of any of the other condition will entail in

cancellation of bail.

11. Needless to state, observations in this case have been

made for the purposes of deciding the prayer for bail and shall not

be construed as an expression on merits of the case.

12. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

application.

........................

(Savitri Ratho, J) Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 6th June, 2023/Sukanta

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 08-Jun-2023 20:45:57