Orissa High Court
Saroj Kumar Behera vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 4 January, 2024
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 13203 of 2023
Saroj Kumar Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. A.N. Pattanayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
04.01.2024
Order No.
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with T.R. Case
No.02 of 2021, pending in the Court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore, arising out of Jeypore
Sadar P.S. Case No.03 of 2021, for alleged commission of
offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the
present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating
to the aforementioned P.S. Case is pending in any other Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail
U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Jeypore, I/c by order dated 10.11.2023 in the
aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
5. It is alleged that the Petitioner along with the co-accused
are found to be in possession of contraband to the tune of 140Kgs
(Ganja).
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
with vehemence that the vehicle in which the Petitioner was the
occupant contraband to the tune of 100Kgs was seized. Hence, he
ought not to be made responsible for the total quantity of
contraband of 140Kgs.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that such segregation
is not permissible.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that
even if the stand of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is accepted
at its face value, the quantity of contraband being admittedly more
than the commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of
NDPS Act are squarely applicable.
9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the State
that the Petitioner has two criminal antecedents inasmuch as he has
been cited as an accused in Koraput town P.S. Case No.134 of 2018
for commission of offence under Sections 364-A/395 of IPC and
Koraput town P.S. Case No.67 of 2007 under Sections 448/509/34
of IPC.
10. Considering the submission that the Petitioner is in custody
since 05.01.2021, a report was called fro from the learned Court in
seisin regarding the stage of trial. In the said report, it is stated that
three witnesses out of nine witnesses have been examined and
thereafter there was no progress in trial because of retirement of the
incumbent Presiding Officer.
11. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Rabi Prakash vrs. The State of Odisha reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1109, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks release.
12. It is trite that an order has to be applied in the factual
matrix of individual case and there cannot be any universal
application more so in a case under the Special Act, where the grant
of bail is an exception. (Ref:-State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad
reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673)
13. Keeping in view the criminal proclivity of the Petitioner
and more particularly in view of the second limb of Section
37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act as rightly adverted to by the learned
counsel for the State, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail
application at this stage. This Court is not persuaded to hold that the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash (Supra)
can be put into play in the fact of the present case.
14. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
15. Learned Registrar (Admn.)I/c is requested to take steps for
transfer of the case to a Court within the Sessions Division so that
the trial can be proceeded on day-to-day basis, with the kind
approval of the concerned Portfolio Judge.
(V. NARASINGH)
Ayesha Judge
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Jan-2024 17:12:58
