Orissa High Court
Saraswati Haldar vs State Of Odisha on 21 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.298 of 2023
1. Saraswati Haldar .... Appellants/
2. Nilima Biswas Petitioners
Mr.T.K. Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr.P.B. Tripathy
Addl.Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 21.06.2023
I.A. No. 898 of 2023
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
The appellants-petitioners have been convicted
under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and
sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh), in default, to
undergo further R.I. for a period of one year by the
learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Malkangiri
in T. R. No. 162 of 2019.
// 2 //
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners are ladies and they are in judicial
custody since 28.11.2019. Learned counsel further
submitted that it is the prosecution case that from the
individual possession of the petitioner no.1 Saraswati
Haldar, 10 kg. of ganja was recovered and from the
individual possession of petitioner no.2 Nilima Biswas,
9kg. of ganja was recovered and without preparing
separate seizure lists to indicate the individual
possession, a common seizure list was prepared after
totalling the quantity of ganja seized not only from the
petitioners but also from the co-accused Aniket Prasad
to make it 40 kgs., which is a commercial quantity.
Learned counsel further submitted that if the quantity of
ganja seized from the individual possession of the
petitioners is taken into account, it was lesser than the
commercial quantity and as such, the bar under section
37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be applicable for grant
of bail. It is further submitted that the petitioners have
got a fair chance of success in the appeal and balance
of convenience lies in their favour and in view of the
period of detention of the petitioners in judicial custody,
their bail application may be favouraly considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail, but however does not
dispute that from the impugned judgment, it clearly
// 3 //
reveals that from the individual possession of each of the
petitioners, the quantity of ganja seized was lesser than
commercial quantity and no separate seizure list was
prepared for each of the accused.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the quantity of seized
from the individual possession of the petitioners,
absence of the bar under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act
for such quantity, the period of detention of the
petitioners in judicial custody and absence of any
chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future
and keeping in view the proviso to section 437(1)
Cr.P.C., I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
Let the appellants-petitioners be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court with such terms
and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and
proper. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
The I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Signature Not Verified Judge
PKSahoo
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 22-Jun-2023 17:23:13
