Orissa High Court
Akash Padhi vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 1 October, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.9533 of 2024
Akash Padhi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Sidhartha Das
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. M.R. Mishra, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 01.10.2024
01. 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 483 of B.N.S.S.
has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection
with Bargarh P.S. Case No. 447 of 2024 corresponding to
CT(Spl). Case no. 66 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned
Addl.District & Sessions Judge-cum- Judge Special Court,
Bargarh for alleged commission of offence punishable under
Sections 132/121(1)/ 121(2)/ 109/ 276/ 277/ 3(5) BNS r/w Sec-
21(b)/ 29 NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this
matter was not before any of the bench of this Court. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2024. He further contended
that the investigation has progressed substantially in the
meantime. Further referring to the allegation made in the
prosecution report learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that a total quantity of 480 bottles of wincerex cough syrup was
recovered from the possession of one Manasi Kuswaha. He
further contended that the petitioner was not present at the spot
of occurrence, however he has been implicated in the present
case on the basis of the co-accused statement. Learned counsel
for the petitioner at this juncture referring to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil
Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 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) contended that the Statement of the co-accused cannot
be used as evidence against the present petitioner. He further
submitted that since nothing has been recovered from the
exclusive and conscious possession of the present petitioner, the
bar under Section 37 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 absconding. In such view
of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that
the Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and condition
which the Petitioner undertakes to abide by while on bail.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opposite Party, on the other hand submitted that the
investigation is still on. He opposed the release of the Petitioner
on bail on the ground that in the event the Petitioner is released
on bail, there is a possibility that he might be involved in similar
criminal offences. Learned Additional Standing Counsel
submitted that considering the nature of allegation and the
contraband used in the present case, the release of the petitioner
would be a threat to the society. Therefore, he submitted that the
prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the
surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case and
further keeping the view the period of detention of the Petitioner
in jail custody and the fact that the Petitioner does not have any
similar criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to release the
Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions.
7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail
in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees forty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the
matter.
8. It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose
any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper.
9. 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 similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall
automatically stand revoked.
10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
