Pradeep @ Pradipta Kumar vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 13458 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                      BLAPL No. 12129 of 2023

Pradeep @ Pradipta Kumar
Mishra                               .....                            Petitioner
                                            Mr.Sangram Keshari Rout, Advocate

                                     Vs.
State of Odisha                      .....                       Opposite Party
                                                          Mr.D.K.Mishra, AGA


             CORAM:
                JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                            ORDER

31.10.2023 Order No. (Through hybrid mode)

01.

1. This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed in connection with Padwa P.S. Case No.25 of 2014

corresponding to T.R. No.96 (A) of 2014, pending in the file of

the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput

under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C)/27 (A) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.06.2014 at

about 11.30 p.m. while the S.I. of Padwa Police Station

alongwith staff conducted raid near Pujariput Hatapada, they

found a jeep bearing Registration No.OR-10-4810 coming from

Bada Devta Temple Chhaka side and proceeding towards

Nandapur side. The driver did not stop the vehicle but drove

away at high speed. The police team managed to stop the

vehicle and two of the occupants, but the driver and two other

occupants escaped. On search, police recovered 73 Kgs of

contraband ganja. Since the persons could not produce any

licence/authority for transportation of ganja, they were arrested

and the ganja was seized.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed

against the present petitioner and four others. Three accused

persons, namely, Laba Hantal, Balaram Khilla and Bhagaban

Panasputia faced trial vide judgment dated 30.03.2017. They

have been acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge, Koraput.

4. Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and after he

came to learn that chargesheet has been filed against him, he

has voluntarily surrendered in the Court on 17.08.2023. He

further submits that the co-accused persons who faced trial

have been acquitted. He draws my attention to paragraph-11 of

the impugned judgment where it has been stated that the

involvement of jeep bearing Registration No.OR-10-4810 is

also doubtful as the IIC seized the documents of another jeep

bearing No.OR-02-C-8361 and the weighman has denied his

presence at the spot and the only independent witness has not

supported the prosecution case.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has earlier

approached this Court in BLAPL No.22943 of 2014 and by

order dated 03.03.2015 while rejecting the prayer for bail, this

Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to surrender before

the learned Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Koraput

within 21 days, in which event, the application would be

considered on the same day considering the submissions that

there was no direct material against the petitioner and he has

been implicated on the basis of confession of the co-accused

which is not admissible in evidence. It appears that the

petitioner did not surrender pursuant to that order and filed

ABLAPL No.11921 of 2017 and ABLAPL No.8776 of 2019.

ABLAPL No.11921 of 2017 had been dismissed on 01.12.2018

and ABLAPL No.877 of 2019 had been disposed of on

04.08.2021 granting liberty to the petitioner to surrender in the

Court below and move for regular bail with a direction that the

same shall be considered on its own merit taking into the

factum of accused persons without being prejudiced by that

order. But the petitioner did not think fit to surrender before the

learned Court below and filed CRLMC No.1804 of 2021 which

has been dismissed on 18.01.2022. Hence, the submission of

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not

aware about the case till recently is not correct.

6. I am not inclined to consider the prayer for bail on merit,

as petitioner has been absconding since 09 years.

7. The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty

is granted to the petitioner to move for bail afresh in case there

is undue delay in completion of the trial.

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

(SAVITRI RATHO) JUDGE Bichi

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 31-Oct-2023 18:44:13