CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

John Nayak vs State Of Orissa

Orissa High Court · Decided on 1 May 2023 · Citation: (2023) 05 OHC CK 0008

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Satapathy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 37
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 4679 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

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

10 paragraphs · 351 words

G. Satapathy, J

1.

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

2.

This is an application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with 2(a).C.C. Case No.50 of 2023 arising out of E.I. & E.B., Unit-I, Cuttack P.R. Case No.526 of 2022-23 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the allegation of transporting 54Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a white color Hyundai Verna Car bearing Registration No.OD-05-AZ-3540.

3.

In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. S.S. Ray-2, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the commission of crime and he may kindly be granted bail.

4.

On the contrary, Mr. S.R. Roul, learned ASC, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja has been recovered from the car in which the petitioner was found as occupant and, therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act would operate as a bar for release of the petitioner on bail.

5.

After considering the rival submissions made and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the petitioner and keeping in view the recovery and seizure of 54Kgs of Contraband Ganja from the car in which the petitioner was found travelling at the time of detection and consequent failure of the petitioner to satisfy the Court about the twin conditions as laid down in Section 37 of NDPS Act for grant of bail, this Court, therefore, does not considers it proper to grant bail to the petitioner.

6.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. At the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it is observed that the Petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge and on such event, the bail application of the Petitioner may be considered in accordance with law.

7.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

8.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

………………………….