Orissa High Court
Ajaya Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 6 May, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 8883 of 2024
1. Ajaya Mohapatra .... Petitioners
@ Muna
2. Pramod Kumar
Behera
Mr. D. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.K. Lenka, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
06.05.2025
Order No. I.A. No. 523 of 2025
09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
2. This I.A. has been filed seeking modification of
the order dated 18.12.2024, inter alia, on the ground
of criminal antecedent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
Petitioners were directed to be released on bail by
this Court by order dated 18.12.2024 subject to
verification of antecedent.
4. It is further submitted that inadvertently it
could not be brought to the notice of this Court that
the Petitioners have been cited as accused in the
following cases;
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)
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.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners that since this Court directed release of
the Petitioners on the ground of procrastination of
trial and also taking into account that the
independent witnesses did not support the
prosecution, the antecedent ought not to weigh with
this Court and in support such submission he relies
on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of
Ayub Khan vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2024 INSC
994 more particularly paragraph-10 of the said
judgment.
6. On a bare perusal of the said judgment, this
Court is of the considered view that the same being
relied on bereft of the context and this Court cannot
be oblivious of the order passed in which the
submissions of the learned counsel were taken into
account that the Petitioners do not have antecedents.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the
stipulations contained Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act are squarely attracted in the case at hand
and more so in view of the order of the Apex Court in
the case of State by the Inspector of Police vs. B.
Ramu in SLP(Crl.) No(s).8137 of 2022 dated
12.02.2024.
8. In such view of the matter, this Court is not
inclined to modify its order dated 18.12.2024 as in
the considered view of this Court the same amounts
to seeking review on merits.
9. Accordingly, I.A. stands disposed of.
10. It is needless to state that it shall be open for
the Petitioners to renew their prayer which shall be
considered on its own merit.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Santoshi
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-May-2025 18:58:17
