Orissa High Court
Soumya Ranjan Digal vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 8 November, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.5408 of 2024
Soumya Ranjan Digal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Dr. Niranjan Swain
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Smt. Siva Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
08.11.2024
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 T.R. Case No.201 of 2024, arising out of Crime Branch
Special Task Force Case No.17/11-04-2024, pending in the
Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, for
alleged commission of offence punishable under Section
20(b)(ii)C/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the Petitioner is in languishing in custody since 22.04.2024.
He further contended that in the meantime, investigation has
been concluded and charge sheet has been filed. He further
submitted that there is no likelihood of trial being commenced in
an early date. Further, referring to the allegation made in the
F.I.R., learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a total
quantity of 52.600 Kgs. of contraband Ganja was recovered
from the vehicle which is owned by the co-accused, namely,
Bikash Kumar Digal. 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; 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, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted before this Court that the statement of the
co-accused is not admissible as evidence, so far the present
Petitioner is concerned. He further contended that the Petitioner
was arrested subsequently on the basis of the co-accused
statement. It is evident that nothing has been recovered from his
exclusive and conscious possession of the Petitioner. Therefore,
the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be
attracted to the facts of the present case. He further contended
that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent
and that he belongs to the locality, therefore, there is no chance
of his absconding. On such ground, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on
any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court
which the Petitioner shall abide by while on bail.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opposite Party, on the other hand, opposed the release of
the Petitioner on bail on the ground that the present Petitioner
happens to be the brother of the principal accused, namely,
Bikash Kumar Digal, who was arrested from the spot. She
further submitted that the Petitioner was although present at the
spot, however when police arrived at the spot, he escaped and
subsequently he was arrested on 22.04.2024. On such ground,
learned counsel for the State submitted that the present
Petitioner is equally liable for the offence for which his brother,
namely, Bikash Kumar Digal has been shown as an accused in
this case and recovery has been made from the exclusive and
conscious possession of the above named Bikash Kumar Digal.
She further contended that the cases of illegal transportation of
contraband Ganja are on rise in State of Odisha now-a-days.
Therefore, she submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner
be rejected at this juncture.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful
examination of the case diary as well as materials on record, it is
observed that a total quantity of contraband of contraband Ganja
of 52.600 Kgs. was recovered from the vehicle that is registered
in the name of accused Bikash Kumar Digal. So far the present
Petitioner is concerned, it is not disputed that he was arrested
subsequently on 24.04.2024 and that no recovery of any
contraband Ganja was made in his possession. Therefore, the bar
under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to
the facts of the present case. Further, the allegation of the State
that the Petitioner happens to be the brother of principal accused
Bikash Kumar Digal and he escaped from the spot is the subject
matter of trial as no such evidence is come forward at this stage.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the
learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a
careful examination of the material on record, further taking
note of the fact that the Petitioner does not have any similar
criminal antecedent and nothing has been recovered from his
possession, as such, the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case, this
Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail.
8. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail
in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees thirty thousand) with two local solvent sureties for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the
matter. Further, the release of the Petitioner shall also be subject
to the following conditions:-
I) he shall not be involved in any offence
of similar nature while on bail;
II) he shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence or try to threaten or influence the
witnesses in any manner whatsoever;
III) he shall not make any default in
attending the court during trial on each date
without fail; and
IV) he shall appear before the concerned
Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on
'Sunday' in between 10.00 A.M to 1.00 PM. till
conclusion of the trial.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail.
9. It is open to the Court in seisin over the matter to impose
any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper.
10. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner
is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify
whether the Petitioner is having any criminal antecedent of
similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is
having any criminal antecedent of similar nature, then this bail
order shall automatically stand revoked.
11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
