Orissa High Court
Sanak Pradhan vs Union Of India ..... Opposite Party on 19 November, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.9076 of 2024
Sanak Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Surya Kanta Pradhan
-versus-
Union Of India ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. M.K.Pati, C.G.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
19.11.2024
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Mr.Manoj Kumar Pati, learned C.G.C. has filed power on behalf
of the Petitioner to conduct the case. The name of Mr.Manoj Kumar
Pati, learned C.G.C. be reflected in the cause list as well as in the brief
by deleting the name of Mr.Satyabrata Panda.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the materials
placed before this Court.
4. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner 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), and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this
matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted
by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is in custody since
02.06.2021. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the Petitioner is aged about 35 years and working as a
driver 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 was working as driver although the
Petitioner was arrested from the spot along with the helper 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
driver in the truck. She also contended that the Petitioner is no way
concerned although the ganja was transported in the truck.
6. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
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. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner 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.
7. 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 belongs to the locality, there is no chance of
his absconding. She also submitted that the Petitioner 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 submitted that the
Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and conditions as would
be deemed fit and proper.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the NCT on the other hand
objected to the prayer for bail of the Petitioner 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. 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. On such ground learned counsel for the NCT submitted
that the application of the Petitioner be rejected.
9. 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 that he is working as
driver in the truck and he does not have any antecedent, additionally,
the Petitioner is languishing in custody for three years and trial has
not commenced, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner
and it is directed that let the Petitioner 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 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.
10. On perusal of the record it appears that a report was
called for from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh with regard to the progress of trial
keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner is languishing in custody
since 02.06.2021 and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in judgment of Mohd.Muslim v. State (NCT of
Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2023 decided on 28.03.2023.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh has
submitted a report vide letter dated 17.10.2024 which was placed
before this Court for consideration. On perusal of the said report it
appears that during the last three and half years only two witnesses
have been examined out of the eight prosecution witnesses. The
report further reveals that other official and materials witnesses have
been transferred from Orissa and posted in different States. In view
of the aforesaid report it appears that attendance of the witnesses
may take a long time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
present case is squarely covered by the Hon'ble Judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.Muslim (supra).
11. 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, this bail order
shall automatically stand revoked and shall not be given effect
to.
12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
