Orissa High Court
Binod Kumar Harijan vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 19 November, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.9550 of 2024
Binod Kumar Harijan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Arijeet Mishra
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. S.Mohanty, A.S.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 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 483 of B.N.S.S. has
been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with T.R.
Case No.29 of 2024, arising out of Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.127
of 2024, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Koraput at Jeypore, for alleged commission of offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)C/25/29 of N.D.P.S. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that earlier this
matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the
Petitioners, who were initially not named in the F.I.R., have been
languishing in jail custody since 04.08.2024. He further contended
that in the meantime investigation has progressed substantially.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that although
the Petitioners were not named in the F.I.R., however, they have
been implicated in the present case on the basis of the confessional
statement of the co-accused. Learned counsel for the Petitioners
further referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 16 SCC
31, submitted that such confessional statement of the co-accused
cannot be used as evidence against the present Petitioners. Learned
counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that there is no evidence
that any recover has been made from the possession of the present
Petitioners. 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
submitted that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal
antecedent and that they belong to the locality, therefore, there is no
chance of their absconding.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended
that the allegations made against the Petitioners in the FIR are
serious in nature. He further contended that the investigation is still
on. Therefore, in the event the Petitioners are released on bail, there
is every likelihood that they might abscond from justice which would
cause delay in conclusion of the investigation as well as filing of the
charge sheet.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of
the materials on record and further taking note of the fact that
nothing has been recovered from the possession of the Petitioners
and that they have no similar criminal antecedent, this Court is
inclined to release the Petitioners on bail.
7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail in
the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Five Thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each for
the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over
the matter. The release of the Petitioners shall also be subject to such
other terms and conditions that would be imposed by the Court in
seisin over the matter. Violation of any of the terms and conditions
shall entail cancellation of bail.
8. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioners is
subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the
Petitioners are having any similar criminal antecedent. In the event it
is found that the Petitioners are having any similar criminal
antecedent, then this bail order shall automatically stand revoked.
9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
