Orissa High Court
Pinky Meher @ Sakuntala vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 5 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.862 of 2025
Pinky Meher @ Sakuntala .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Chand,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr. S. Panda,
ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 05.03.2025
01.
1.
Heard.
2. Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that admittedly the chemical examination
report has not been placed on record by the
investigating officer while filing the charge sheet and
despite that the learned trial court vide order dated
26.09.2024 has taken cognizance of the offences
punishable under Section 21 (C)/29 of the NDPS Act.
He has handed over the certified copy of the
proceeding sheet of the trial court, which indicates
that till 24.01.2025, charges have not been framed in
the instant case. Reading of the proceeding also
reveals that chemical examination report has not been
placed on record as yet. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, he submits that the cognizance order
is bad in law. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this
Court at this stage seeking quashing of the cognizance
order.
3. I am not inclined to entertain this petition at this
stage. However, regard being had to the order
28.11.2024 passed by this Court in CRLMC No. 4342
of 2024 titled Sk. Tairuddin v. State of Odisha, the
petition deserves similar order.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking
quashing of the order dated 26.09.2024 in connection
with Sambalpur Town P.S. Case No.118 of 2024
corresponding to T.R.Case No.44 of 2018 for the
offence punishable under Section 21(C)/29 of the
N.D.P.S. Act pending in the Court of the learned
Sessions Judge-cum-Judge (Special Court),
Sambalpur.
5. The preliminary charge sheet has been filed in
the present case on 20.09.2024. However, the
chemical examination report has not been attached
with the charge sheet. Therefore, the petitioner moved
an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C.
inter alia, urging that the preliminary charge sheet
without the chemical analysis report is not the charge
sheet in the eye of law. Therefore, he is entitled to the
statutory benefit contemplated under Section 167(2) of
the Cr. P.C. He has relied upon the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sk.
Eimat @ Bidhia vs. State of Odisha in CRLMC
No.2033 of 2022 and submits that the present case
is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court and
seeks similar relief as has been granted by the
Coordinate Bench in that matter. He has relied upon
paragraph-12 of the SK Eimat(supra) which reads as
under:
"12. If the court below did not have the Chemical Examination
Reports, a claim which has remained unchallenged, it is not
easily comprehended as to how for an offence under N.D.P.S. Act,
cognizance was taken. Whether other materials submitted along
with the preliminary chargesheets were sufficient for the court
below to form an opinion that the contraband substance to be
Brown sugar? Anyways, in the given situation, the petitioners
could have claimed bail on such ground. It is not known, if in the
meantime, the Chemical Examination Reports have been received
by the court below. In aforesaid backdrop, the Court is of the
opinion that the case of the petitioners for regular bail should be
examined and it shall be by the learned court below considering
the Chemical Examination Reports, if it is available and in case,
the same could not be found, to release both of them on bail
subject to such conditions unless it is fully convinced that the
contraband substance is nothing but Brown sugar. But while
taking a decision in that regard, the significance of the Chemical
Examination Report and its absence should not be lost sight of
which in fact play a dominant role and a deciding factor in
reaching at a conclusion as to the nature of the contraband
substance. However, in the event the Chemical Examination
Reports are received later to the release of the petitioners with a
positive result that the seized substance is Brown sugar, the
learned court below shall have the jurisdiction to ensure
cancellation of bail but in accordance with law."
6. I have perused the preliminary charge sheet and
the related documents placed before this Court and
also analyzed the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of
this Court as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
7. The petitioner is entitled to the same relief as has
been granted by the Coordinate Bench in CRLMC
No.2033 of 2022. Accordingly, the present petition
under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is disposed of granting
liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate
application before the learned trial Court under
Section 439 Cr. P.C. for grant of regular bail. If such
application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall
be considered on the light of the aforementioned
judgment of the Coordinate Bench as well as the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. The petition is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 06-Mar-2025 15:27:57
