Orissa High Court
Jaggu Ram Dhobi @ Ranvijay vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 17 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2115 of 2025
Jaggu Ram Dhobi @ Ranvijay .... Petitioner
Pratap
Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
17.04.2025
Order No.
01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R.
Case No.53 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge cum-Special Judge, Gajapati,
Paralakhemundi arising out of Mohana PS Case No.144 of
2020 for commission of alleged offences punishable under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for
bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Paralakhemundi by order dated 04.01.2025 in the
aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been
preferred.
4. Heard Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the Petitioner so
also Mr. Satpathy, learned ASC for the State.
5. A query being made, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, 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.
6. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits,
this is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court. The
Petitioner was the helper of the offending truck, who has
been falsely implicated in G.R Case No.53 of 2020 as a co-
accused.
7. Mr. Bose further submits, the Petitioner approached
this Court in BLAPL No.180 of 2021, which stood disposed
of vide order dated 28.01.2021 rejecting the bail
application of the Petitioner. However, the learned trial
Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the
same within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of copy of the said order and liberty was granted to the
Petitioner to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not
concluded within the said period. Since, the trial could not
be concluded within the stipulated period, as directed by
this Court in BLAPL No.180 of 2021, the Petitioner moved
before the trial Court by filing a fresh bail application,
which also stood rejected.
8. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the
Petitioner approached this Court in BLAPL No.10664 of
2021, which stood rejected vide order dated 15.12.2023,
solely on the ground that the quantity of ganja seized is of
commercial quantity and there is bar under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act. However, liberty was granted to the
Petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the learned
trial Court in seisin over the matter. In view of such liberty,
a bail application being moved before the learned trial
Court, the same stood rejected vide order dated
04.01.2025.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits, as
per the instruction received, the Petitioner has no criminal
antecedents. As he is in jail custody since 17.09.2020, in
view of the judgment of the Supreme Court Ankur
Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in SLP
(Crl.) No.4648 of 2024, Rabi Prakash Vs. State of
Odisha, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1109 and in
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi,
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 352, the Petitioner to be
released on bail on such terms and conditions as this
Court deems just and proper.
10. Learned Counsel for the State opposes to such
prayer for bail on the ground that in view of the specific bar
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, keeping in view the
quantity of contraband ganja seized from the possession of
the Petitioner and co-accused, he should not be released
on bail. Further, though vide order dated 28.01.2021
passed in BLAPL No.180 of 2021, there was a direction to
conclude the proceeding within six months, in the
subsequent rejection order dated 15.12.2023 passed in
BLAPL No.10664 of 2021; there was no specific direction to
conclude the proceeding within any stipulated period. That
apart, the bail application has been rightly rejected by the
learned Court in seisin over the matter as there is no
significant change in circumstances.
11. Admittedly, despite direction of this Court dated
28.01.2021 passed in BLAPL No.180 of 2021, the
prosecution has failed to conclude the trial and the
Petitioner is in custody since 17.09.2020. That apart, out
of 23 charge sheet witnesses, only 14 witnesses have been
examined till date and conclusion of trial may take further
time.
12. Considering the period in custody of the Petitioner so
also keeping in view the dictum of the Supreme Court in
Ankur Chaudhary (Supra), Rabi Prakash (supra) and
Mohd. Muslim (supra), this Court directs that the
Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms and
conditions to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.
13. At this stage, to allay the apprehension of the learned
Counsel for the State regarding ensuring the presence of
the Petitioner during trial since he does not belong to the
State of Odisha, additionally it is directed that one of the
family members of the Petitioner shall execute the P.R bond
in addition to the sureties to be ordered by the learned
Court in seisin and his criminal antecedent from his parent
police station shall also be called for.
14. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall appear
before the learned trial Court in seisin over the matter on
which date the matter would be posted for trial and shall
cooperate with the learned trial Court.
15. While releasing the Petitioner on bail, learned trial
Court in seisin shall verify the criminal antecedent of the
Petitioner of similar nature. If it comes to fore that the
Petitioner is having any such criminal antecedent of similar
nature, this order shall not be given effect to.
16. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands allowed and disposed
of.
17. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application as per rule.
(S.K. Mishra)
Mona
Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa
