Orissa High Court
Madhab Hantal & Another vs State Of Orissa on 11 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.252 of 2020
Madhab Hantal & Another .... Appellants
Mr. T.J. Pani, Adv.
(for Appellant No.1)
Mr. S.S. Das, Adv.
(for Appellant No.2)
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Respondent
Mr.C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
11.07.2025
I.A. No.1017 of 2025
Order No.
20. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This is an application filed by Appellant No.2
seeking grant of bail by keeping the sentence under
suspension so passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkanagiri in T.R. case
No.09 of 2018 (arising out of Mathili P.S. Case No.06
dated 12.01.2018) dt. 14.02.2019.
4. It is contended that vide the impugned judgment
dt.14.02.2019, eleven (11) nos. of accused persons
were convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)
// 2 //
of the NDPS Act. All the accused persons were
convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of
10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh)
each for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the
NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
R.I for further period of six (6) months.
4.1. It is contended that Appellant No.2 is in custody
since 12.01.2018 and in the meantime he has already
undergone 7 years of substantive sentence out of the
total sentence of 10 years.
4.2. It is also contended that similarly situated co-
accused persons in Crl. Appeal No.463 of 2019 and 628
of 2019 have been allowed to go on bail vide order
dt.30.08.2024 and 20.02.2023. Not only that,
appellant No.1 has also been released on bail vide order
dt.04.04.2025.
4.3. It is accordingly contended that since similarly
situated co-accused persons have been released on bail
by this Court in Crl. Appeal Nos. 463 of 2019 and 628
of 2019 as well as Appellant No.1 the present appellant
being similarly situated, be also released on bail on
such terms and conditions as deem and fit proper by
keeping the sentence under suspension.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
contended that since the appellant has been convicted
for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) the NDPS Act,
// 3 //
taking into account the nature of allegation and the
offence, the appellant is not eligible to get the benefit.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made and the fact that the
Appellant No.2 has already undergone more than 7
years of substantive sentence out of the total sentence
of 10 years and the fact that similarly situated co-
accused persons have been released on bail by this
Court in the connected Crl. Appeal Nos. 463 of 2019
and 628 of 2019 and the fact that Appellant No.2 did
not misuse the liberty granted by this Court, this
Court is inclined to allow the prayer for bail.
6.1. Appellant No.2 be released on bail on such terms
and conditions as deem fit and proper by the learned
court in seisin of the matter by keeping the sentence
under suspension.
The I.A accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 14-Jul-2025 17:22:36
