Orissa High Court
) Bhaktabandhu Pradhan vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 26 June, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.11451 of 2022
1) Bhaktabandhu Pradhan ..... Petitioners
2) Sanak Pradhan Represented By Adv. -
M/s. Surya Kanta
Pradhan , D.r. Nanda
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Satyabrata Panda
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
26.06.2024
Order No.
16 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
. /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the materials
placed before this Court.
3. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioners for bail in connection
with 2 (a) C.C. Case No.09 of 2021 corresponding to NCB Crime
No.03/NCB/BBSR/2021 pending in the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh for alleged commission
of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii) (C), 28 and 29 of the
N.D.P.S.Act. The bail application of Petitioner No.2 has become
infructuous. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioners confined
her argument in respect of Petitioner No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier this
matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted
by the learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1 is in custody since
02.06.2021. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners that the Petitioner No.1 is a young boy of 24 years and
working as a helper in a truck from which contraband article was
recovered. She further contended that 623 kg. of ganja was
recovered from the truck in which Petitioner No.1 was working as
helper although the Petitioner was arrested from the spot along with
the driver of the truck . She also contended that recovery of ganja
from the truck cannot be related to the present Petitioner, who was
working as a mere helper in the truck. She also contended that the
Petitioner No.1 is no way concerned although the ganja was
transported in the truck.
5. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1
further contended that although the case is of the year 2021 and the
Petitioner is languishing in custody since the date of his arrest i.e.
02.06.2021, the trial has not commenced yet. On perusal of the
record, this Court observes that report was called for by this Court in
respect of progress made in the trial. On perusal of such report, the
Petitioner was allowed to go on interim bail on 19.04.2024. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner No.1 further contended that the Petitioner
No.1 did not avail the benefit of interim bail. She also submitted that
although there are nine prosecution witnesses in the present case,
none of the witnesses have been examined so far although three years
time have been elapsed from the date of arrest of the Petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1 has referred the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd.Muslim v. State (NCT of
Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2023 decided on 28.03.2023.
6. It is also submitted that right of speedy trial is a right conferred
on the accused by virtue of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He
further contended that although Charge Sheet has been filed and
charge has been framed, but witnesses have not been examined.
Therefore, the same infringes the right of the Petitioner for speedy
trial. Therefore she submitted that the in view of the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the
bar under section 37 of the Act is not attracted to the fact of the
present case.. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended
that since the Petitioner No.1 belongs to the locality, there is no
chance of his absconding. She also submitted that the Petitioner
No.1 does not have any criminal antecedent of similar nature.
Therefore, there is no possibility of repeating the same offence again.
In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1
submitted that the Petitioner No.1 be released on bail on any terms
and conditions as would be deemed fit and proper.
7. Mr.Panda, learned counsel appearing for the NCT on the other
hand objected to the prayer for bail of the Petitioner No.1 on the
ground that the quantity of ganja which has been seized is 623 kg. of
contraband ganja, is more than the commercial quantity, therefore,
the bar under section 37 of the Act is directly attracted to the present
case. He further submitted that in view of such bar, the Petitioner
who was arrested from the spot is not entitled to be released on bail.
Mr.Panda, learned counsel for NCT further contended that the cases
of illegal transportation of contraband article are on rise in State of
Odisha now-a-days. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to the
Petitioner No.1, even though the Petitioner is a young boy of 24
years. On such ground learned counsel for the NCT submitted that
the application of the Petitioner No.1 be rejected.
7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on
record as well as taking note that the Petitioner No.1 that he is a
young boy of 24 years of age and working as helper in the truck and
he does not have any antecedent, additionally, the Petitioner No.1 is
languishing in custody for three years and trial has not commenced,
this Court is inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner No.1 and it is
directed that let the Petitioner No.1 be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees
Thirty five thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to
the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Release
of the Petitioner No.1 shall be subject to such terms and conditions
that would be imposed by the court in seisin over the matter.
Violation of condition shall entail cancellation of bail.
8. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner
No.1 is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify
whether the Petitioner No.1 is having any criminal antecedent of
similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner No.1 is
having any criminal antecedent of similar nature, this bail order
shall automatically stand revoked and shall not be given effect
to.
9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
