Orissa High Court
Rameswar Mahadu vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 13 November, 2024
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 10073 of 2024
Rameswar Mahadu .... Petitioner
Bavskar
Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.N. Das, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
13.11.2024
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with
Special G.R. Case No.75 of 2022 pending on the file
of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge,
Malkangiri arising out of Kalimela P.S. Case No.131
of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under
Sections 20(b)(ii)C & 25 of the 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.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned Special
Judge, Malkangiri by order dated 24.09.2024 in the
aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been
filed.
5. This is the fourth journey of the Petitioner to
this Court. Earlier bail applications of the Petitioner
i.e. BLAPL Nos.10914 of 2022, 273 of 2023 and 4027
of 2024 were disposed of by this Court by orders
dated 30.11.2022, 31.01.2024 and 11.09.2024
respectively.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
Petitioner is in custody since 09.05.2022 on the
allegation that he along with other accused were
involved in transportation of contraband to the tune
of 480 kgs (Ganja).
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the co-accused has since been released on bail by
this Court by order dated 04.11.2024 in BLAPL
No.10030 of 2024 and hence on the ground of parity
seeks release and to drive home his attention relating
to parity he relies on the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 51 more particularly paragraph 98
thereof.
8. This Court perused the order of the co-accused
relied upon. Paragraph-7 of the said order is
extracted hereunder for brevity.
"7. It is further stated by the learned
counsel that in the meanwhile twelve
witnesses have been examined and drawing
the attention of this Court to the deposition of
P.Ws 11 and 12, who are the independent
witnesses and resiled, also referring to the
deposition of P.W.1, it is stated by the learned
counsel with vehemence that since the same
raises serious doubt regarding the presence of
the Executive Magistrate- P.W.8. Hence,
further continuance of the Petitioner in custody
is unwarranted. In this context he refers to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh in SLP(Crl.) No.4648 of 2024
dated 28.05.2024."
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
State opposes the prayer for bail and refers to the
earlier common order dated 11.09.2024 in BLAPL
No.4027 of 2024, wherein the bail application of the
Petitioner was rejected. It is submitted that since
there is no change in circumstance, the bail
application does not merit consideration and in view
of bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS
Act hand and he also refers to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State by theInspector of
Police vs. B. Ramu in SLP(Crl.)No(s).8137 of
2022 dated 12.02.2024. Learned counsel for the
State also opposes the prayer for bail on the ground
that the Petitioner is a flight risk.
10. It is stated by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the said order was passed on
11.09.2024 and P.Ws 11 and 12 were examined on
23.09.2024 and as they have not supported the
prosecution, there is no bar for this Court to consider
the present bail application.
11. It is his further submission that even
otherwise there cannot be any embargo for
considering the bail application irrespective of the
time lag between the two bail applications.
12. Considering the nature of evidence of P.Ws 11
and 12 and that the Petitioner is the first offender
and release of the co-accused as stated above, this
Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on
such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.
13. To allay the legitimate apprehension of the
learned Public Prosecutor regarding ensuring the
presence of Petitioner during trial, since he does not
ordinarily reside in the State of Odisha, it is further
directed that one of the family members of the
Petitioner shall execute the P.R bond in addition to
the sureties in terms of the order of the learned Court
in seisin and his criminal antecedents from his parent
police station shall also be called for. If it comes to
fore that the Petitioner has criminal antecedents of
any nature, this order shall not be given effect to.
14. Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner
shall appear before the jurisdiction police station once
every month on such date and time to be fixed by the
learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial.
Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to
the Court in seisin.
15. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
16. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted
as per rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Ayesha Judge
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 14-Nov-2024 19:10:34
