AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
22 paragraphs · 761 wordsV. Narasingh, J
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioner is an accused in connection with T.R. Case No.45 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur, arising out of Bisam Katak P.S. Case No.16 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections-20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of NDPS Act.
Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur by order dated 02.12.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
It is stated by the learned counsel that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he is allegedly shown as the driver of the vehicle from which the contraband(ganja) to the tune of 150 kgs was seized.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 13.02.2023, charge sheet has already been filed on 09.08.2023 and that the Petitioner is the first offender.
On instruction, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the prosecution has sought to rely on 26 witnesses to drive home the charge and it is her submission with vehemence that the Petitioner is the victim of circumstance since prima facie, there is no material to indicate that the Petitioner was the driver of the vehicle in question. It is her submission that taking into account the nature of allegations, Petitioner may be released on bail.
Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State, referring to the recitals in the case at hand and the order of rejection.
Learned counsel for the State also relies on 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 and submits that the plea of innocence as advanced in the case at hand does not stand to reason. Hence, he seeks rejection of the bail application in view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
Taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the trial is lingering, a report was called for from the learned Court in seisin. Relevant extract of the said report dated 16.04.2024 is culled out hereunder for convenience of ready reference:
xxx xxx xxx
Charge for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused persons namely Amir Chand Muli and Ajay Bhausaheb Khande on 17.01.2024. Out of 15 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, no witness has turned up despite of issuance of summons. Hence, no witness has been examined so far. Now the case stands posted to 29.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 for trial.
xxx xxx xxx
On a bare perusal, it is seen that in fact 15 witnesses have been cited and no witness has been examined till the date because there was non- appearance on the issuance of summons.
Considering that the Petitioner is the first offender and he is in custody for more than a year without commencement of trial and the prosecution has sought to rely on 15 witnesses to drive home the charge, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin subject to verification of criminal antecedent, keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vrs. The State of Odisha, 2023 Live Law (SC) 533.
If it comes to fore that the Petitioner has criminal antecedent of any nature, this order shall not be given effect to.
It is needless to state that the observation made herein is only for the purpose of consideration of the bail application. They ought not to be viewed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner which has to be adjudicated independently in the impending trial.
Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional police station twice every week on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the learned Court in seisin.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules..
....……………………………