Orissa High Court
Sk Sabuddhin @ Sk Sabudin @ vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 6 August, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.7850 of 2024
Sk Sabuddhin @ Sk Sabudin @ ..... Petitioner
Malaya @ Muna
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sk. Zafarulla
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. M.K. Mohanty,
A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
06.08.2024
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional
Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.
3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the
Petitioner for pre-arrest bail.
4. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with T.R.
No.218/2022, arising out of Special Task Force P.S. Case No.14 of
2022, pending in the court of learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar, for alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 21(c)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that neither
the present Petitioner was present at the spot nor anything has been
recovered from his exclusive and conscious possession. He further
contended that the Petitioner is implicated on the basis of the co-
accused statement in the present case. Further, referring to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh v.
The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that such statement of the co-
accused recorded under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act is not admissible
against an accused. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted
that the investigation has been concluded and preliminary charge sheet
has been filed without naming the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submitted that although the Petitioner is having one
similar criminal antecedent, however, he is ready and willing to abide
by any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the
event he is released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the
release of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail on the ground that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. are very serious in nature.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the
materials on record, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the
Petitioner. However, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner
surrenders before the Court in seisin over the matter within a period of
four weeks from today and moves an application for bail, the Court in
seisin over the mater shall consider and dispose of the bail application
of the Petitioner in accordance with law on the same day. While
considering the bail application of the Petitioner, the Court in seisin
over the matter shall also keep in view the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31; and order dated 10.01.2022 in the matter
of State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimuta and
another (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.242 of 2022) and
pass necessary order.
8. The Case Diary be made available to the concerned court to
facilitate disposal of the bail application of the Petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the ABLAPL is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
