Ajaya Mohapatra @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 6196 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ajaya Mohapatra @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 24 June, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      I.A No.582 of 2025
                         arising out of
                    BLAPL No.8883 of 2024

     1.Ajaya Mohapatra @
     Muna
     2. Pramod Kumar
                                  ....           Petitioners
     Behera
                                      Mr. D. Panda, Advocate


                           -versus-

     State of Odisha              ....       Opposite Party
                                       Mr. S. K. Brahma, ASC


                CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                   Date of hearing : 19.06.2025

                    Date of order: 24.06.2025

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Brahma, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

2. The Petitioners are facing trial in connection with T.R No.50/83 of 2023 pending on the file of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri (Baselisahi P.S. Case No.38 of 2023) for commission of the alleged offence under Section 21(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S Act.

3. This is an application for modification of the order dated 18.12.2024 by which the Petitioners were directed to be released on bail by this Court in BLAPL No.8883 of 2024 subject to verification of criminal antecedents, inter alia, stating that inadvertently the antecedents could not be brought to the notice of this Court while releasing on bail.

4. It is apposite to note that the Petitioners had moved such modification by filing I.A No.422 of 2025 and by order dated 7.4.2025 the same was permitted to be withdrawn giving liberty to the Petitioners to file a better application and thereafter, the Petitioners had moved I.A No.523 of 2025 for modification of the said stipulations which was rejected by order dated 6.5.2025.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Panda that there is no embargo for seeking further modification of the order more so since the Petitioners are in custody since 3.2.2023.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer on the ground that the present application is not maintainable since self-same prayer has already been rejected by order dated 6.5.2025, as noted above.

Considering that the Petitioners are in custody since 3.2.2023 in spite of the order directing for their release vide order dated 18.12.2024, this Court negates the contention of the learned counsel for the State regarding entertainability of the present I.A.

7. To fortify his submission that the Petitioners are entitled to be released on bail on the ground of procrastination of trial. And, in such circumstances, keeping in view the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution for speedy trial, antecedents ought not to be treated as an embargo, the learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan vrs. The State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 and, the judgment of this Court dated 27.09.2024 in BLAPL No.8067 of 2024 which is under the N.D.P.S Act.

Paragraphs 13 and 13-A thereof on which reliance was placed are extracted hereunder for convenience of ready reference.

"13. Right to be released on bail due to prolonged incarceration on account of non- progress in trial is asserted on the anvil of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

As such, this Court is of the considered view that twin statutory prescriptions enjoined

in Section 37(1)(ii) of the NDPS Act as extracted above pales into insignificance.

On this aspect, respectful reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2023 SC 1648 and Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109. 13-A. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Apex Court dealt with the offences governed by Special Act like the NDPS Act as in the case at hand and noted that the provisions contained in Section 436A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts as well in the absence of any specific provision and held that the rigor, as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would not come in the way in such a case while dealing with the liberty of a person and further noted that "more the rigor, the quicker the adjudication ought to be".

8. The antecedents of the Petitioners run thus:

Petitioner No.1 is involved in -

i. Jankia P.S. Case No. 39 of 2012, U/s.447/380/427/354/506/34 IPC. ii. Jankia P.S. Case No. 114 of 2019 u/s.

21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

Petitioner No.2 is involved in -

i. Jankia P.S. Case No. 112 of 2019, u/s.

399/402 IPC.

9. Referring to the same, learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the twin stipulations contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S Act as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State by the Inspector of Police vrs. B. Ramu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073 in which weighed with this Court in rejecting the earlier application for modification. Hence, the present application is also liable to be rejected.

10. As evident from the order dated 18.12.2024 in BLAPL No.8883 of 2024 this Court noted the accusation against the Petitioners that they are allegedly involved in the transportation of the contraband to the tune of 256 grams of brown sugar and taking into account that the independent witnesses P.Ws.2 and 8 did not support the prosecution and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ankur Chaudhary vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2730 directed release subject to verification of criminal antecedents.

11. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners on instruction that the trial is still in progress and in fact, only one more witness has been

examined in the meanwhile since the time of disposal of BLAPL No.8883 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024.

12. Admittedly the Petitioner No.1 was directed to be released on interim bail for a period of three weeks to perform the obsequies of his father by order dated 2.9.2024 in I.A No.1134 of 2024 and on expiry of the interim bail period, the Petitioner No.1 surrendered in due time which has been noted by order dated 5.10.2024. Petitioner No.2 is aged about 60 years.

13. The right of the accused for speedy trial more so in cases where the grant of bail is an exception (Ref : State of M.P. vrs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC

673) needs no emphasis.

14. The antecedents in the case at hand in respect of Petitioner No.1 are of the year 2012 and 2019 and that Petitioner No.2 is of the year 2019. Though one of the antecedents of Petitioner No.1 is under Section 21(b) of the N.D.P.S Act and Petitioner No.2 is not accused of commission of an offence under the N.D.P.S Act.

While considering the stipulations under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S Act, in the considered view of this Court the nature of the antecedents and the time lag between the same and

the commission of the offence which is the subject- matter of bail application, ought to be taken into account.

15. Hence, on a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record and the evidence as adduced in the ongoing trial, keeping in view the submissions that inadvertently the antecedents could not be brought to the notice of the Court while disposing of the bail application by order dated 18.12.2024 in BLAPL No.8883 of 2024 and taking into account that the Petitioners are in custody since 3.2.2023 and have not been released on bail because of the antecedents in spite of the order dated 18.12.2024 referred to hereinabove and that Petitioner No.1 did not misuse the trust reposed in him while releasing him on interim bail and age of Petitioner No.2, this Court is of the considered view that directing release of the Petitioners would subserve the ends of justice. And, their further continuance in custody would be punitive in the backdrop of balancing their rights qua the accusations, on the touch stone of the principles relating to the rights of under trials in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution.

16. It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioners shall be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by

the learned Court in seisin so as to ensure their presence on each date of trial. It is further directed that keeping in view their criminal proclivity they shall appear once every fortnight before the jurisdictional police station. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted before the learned Court in seisin. They shall not leave the State of Odisha without express permission of the learned Court in seisin.

17. I.A is accordingly disposed of.

(V. Narasingh) Judge

PKS

Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2025 19:44:21