Orissa High Court
Prasant Sahoo vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 20 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.395 of 2025
Prasant Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.01.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite
Party-State.
3. This is an application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023
filed by the Petitioner for pre-arrest bail.
4. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with
T.R. Case No.107 of 2024, arising out of Industrial Estate P.S.
Case No.254 of 2024, pending in the court of learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under NDPS Act,
Khordha, for alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 21(b)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the Petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of the
co-accused statement. He further contended that nothing has
been recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of
the present Petitioner, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present
case. Further, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the statement of the co-accused cannot be
accepted as evidence, so far the present Petitioner is concerned.
He further contended that the Petitioner belongs to the locality,
therefore, there is no chance of his absconding.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed
the release of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail on the ground of
gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He further submitted
that investigation is still on. Therefore, the release of the
Petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would cause adverse
impact on the on-going investigation.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, I am
not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. However, it
is directed that in the event the Petitioner surrenders before the
Court in seisin over the matter within a period of four weeks
from today and moves an application for bail, the Court in seisin
over the mater shall consider and dispose of the bail application
of the Petitioner in accordance with law on the same day. While
considering the bail application of the Petitioner, the Court in
seisin over the matter shall also keep in view the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. The State of
Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31; 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) and shall also take into
consideration the fact that the bar under Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present
case and pass necessary order.
8. The Case Diary be made available to the concerned court
to facilitate disposal of the bail application of the Petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the ABLAPL is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
