Chandra Sekhar Chand vs State Of Odisha

B. P. Routray, J

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. S.K. Padhy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Opposite Party - State.

This order arises out of an application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the Petitioner Chandra Sekhar Chand in connection with Ambabhona P.S. Case No.146 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. (Spl.) Case No.451 of 2019 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh for alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act for alleged possession of contraband Ganja weighing 21 kg. 80 grams.

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he is inside custody since 29th December, 2019 barring few periods of his release on interim bail and the trial is yet to complete. It is further submitted that two other co-accused persons namely, Banty Badpanda and Raghunath Bag @ Tinchu have already been released on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court in BLAPL No.3484 and 1621 of 2020 respectively.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim alias Hussain vrs. State (NCT of Delhi), decided on 28th March 2023, have observed that grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too. Further, in SLP (Crl.) No.6690 of 2022 (Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vrs. The State of Uttar Pradesh), it is observed that,

“3. It appears that some of the occupants of the ‘Honda City’ Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed.

4.For the reasons stated above but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.”

In the case at hand, upon hearing Mr. Das, learned ASC and considering the delay in completion of trial, the pre-trial custodial period of the petitioner and release of other two co-accused persons on bail in different other bail applications, the embargo contained under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act is dispensed with. Accordingly, it is directed to release present Petitioner on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed just and proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter including the conditions that the Petitioner shall not be involved in any other offence while on bail and shall attend the trial court on each date fixed.

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

………………………………