Bimal @ Bimala Mandal Vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Tamando P.S. Case No.171 of 2022 corresponding to T.R. Case No.273 of 2022 pending in the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the allegation of in unauthorized possession of 50Kgs of Contraband Ganja in the dicky of Swift Desire Car.

Mr. Bikram Keshari Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although charge has been framed against the petitioner on 11.10.2023, but no witness has yet been examined till today and the petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2022 and, therefore, the right to speedy trial of the petitioner has been seriously infringed. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. B.K. Raj prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned AGA by drawing attention of the Court to the seizure of 50Kgs of Contraband Ganja, submits that the petitioner being found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja has not been able to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may not be considered favourably. Accordingly, Mr. S.S. Kanungo, prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

It appears from the record that the petitioner has been detained in custody since 15.07.2022, but charge was framed on 11.10.2023 and thereafter, also no witness has yet been examined in this case, although the case suffered for four adjournments spanning over for approximately four months. It is, therefore, not known when the examination of the witnesses will begin and when the trial will be concluded, which persuades this Court to take a lenient view in the matter. It is, however, found that the quantity of Contraband Ganja seized in this case appears to be commercial quantity, where the provision of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act may ordinarily be attracted before grant of bail to the petitioner, but this Court in the present circumstances considers that the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act may be dispensed with at this stage.

In view of the above facts and circumstance and taking into consideration the rival submissions and regard being had to the pre trial detention of the petitioner in custody and lastly, taking into account the grant of bail to co-accused Prasant Kumar Sahoo in BLAPL No.8820 of 2022, this Court without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, grants bail to the petitioner.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail,

(ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law and

(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by giving his present address of stay

(iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on 2nd Sunday of each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six(06) months from the actual date of his release from the custody.

The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for any offence under NDPS Act on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case.

It is made clear that the Court in seisin of the case, while releasing the petitioner on bail must verify the residential proof of the surety by taking the help of local police, if required and such exercise must be completed within a reasonable period of not more than seven days of filing bail bonds.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

…………………………