Mark Sabar vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
2024 Latest Caselaw 16240 Ori

Orissa High Court

Mark Sabar vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 5 November, 2024

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  BLAPL No.7506 of 2024
          Mark Sabar                              .....                    Petitioner
                                                             Represented By Adv. -
                                                             Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo

                                          -versus-
          State Of Odisha                         .....              Opposite Party
                                                             Represented By Adv. -

                                                             Ms. Sarita Moharana,
                                                             ASC

                                 CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                         ORDER

05.11.2024

Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with Pattapur P.S. Case No.98 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.29 of 2022(N), pending in the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam, for alleged

commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)C of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

4. On perusal of the record, it appears that the accused- Petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2022. In the meantime, although the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced, as per the impugned rejection order dated 02.07.2024, only two witnesses have been examined, out of 24 charge-sheeted witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, submitted that since the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the same violates the fundamental right of the accused of an expeditious trial. Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not been attracted to the facts of the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that earlier there was no direction to the Court below for expeditious trial and conclude the same within a stipulated period of time. She further contended that the trial court be directed to expedite the trial keeping in view the period of custodial detention of the Petitioner.

7. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, the Bail Application is disposed of with direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of

communication of a certified copy of this order. In the event, the trial court is not concluded within the stipulate period of time, liberty is given to the Petitioner to move the trial court afresh. In such eventuality, it is open to the Petitioner to raise all the grounds including the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352; and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Leave Appeal No.6690 of 2022, decided on 25.01.2023).

8. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis