Orissa High Court
Niranjan Sahu vs State Of Odisha on 20 November, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.387 of 2024
Niranjan Sahu ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Chitta Ranjan Sahu
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Shiva Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.11.2024
Order No.
07. I.A. No.949 of 2024
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
counsel for the State.
3. This I.A. has been filed seeking release of the appellant on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that the
appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and he has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years. Further referring to
the prosecution allegation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that as per the prosecution case a total quantity of 36 kgs of ganja was
recovered from the house of the present appellant. He further contended
that mandatory provision of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed
while seizure was conducted by the police. Learned counsel for the
appellant also contended that the house on which the alleged contraband
articles were recovered from a rented house and the same has been
taken on rent by the father of the appellant. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the recovery of the
contraband articles from the exclusive and conscious possession of the
present appellant is being seriously disputed by the present appellant.
Further referring to the evidence on record, learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the same does not conclusively prove that the
alleged contraband articles were recovered from the exclusive and
conscious possession of the present appellant, therefore, the learned trial
court has committed an illegality in convicting the appellant for
commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the appellant
is languishing in custody for almost 4 years and 5 months. In view of
the aforesaid submission, he further contended that the appellant has
almost undergone 50% of the sentence. He further submitted that the
appellant does not have any similar criminal antecedent. It was also
contended that there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal. As
such, the appellant be released on bail on any stringent terms and
conditions.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the
release of the appellant on bail on the ground that the appellant has
already found guilty and, accordingly, he has been convicted for
commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
N.D.P.S. Act. She further contended that there are clinching materials
on record to establish the involvement of the present appellant in the
crime. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that trial
court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant under
the aforesaid section. She further submitted that since the appellant has
already been convicted by the learned trial court, therefore, the
appellant does not have a prima facie case in his favour to be released
on bail. She also contended that in the event the appellant is released on
bail there is every likelihood that he might indulge in similar criminal
offences. On such ground, it was submitted that the application of
appellant on bail be rejected.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the impugned judgment delivered
by the learned trial court, further taking note of the fact that the
appellant is in custody since a period of 4 years and 5 months and that
he has been convicted for a total period of 10 years, further keeping in
view the fact that there is no possibility of an early hearing of the
appeal, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail subject to
imposition of stringent conditions.
8. Hence, it is directed that the Appellant be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
9. It is open for the learned Trial Court to impose any other
conditions as may be deemed just and proper.
10. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
11. List this Appeal in due course for hearing.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Location: High Court of Orissa
