CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Murasid Khan @ Juma vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 7 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 OHC CK 0052

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Narasingh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 21(c), 29
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9344 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

15 paragraphs · 393 words

V. Narasingh, J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2.

The petitioner is an accused in Spl. G.R. Case No.84 of 2022 further corresponding to T.R. Case No.40/121 of 2022, pending before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, arises out of Pipili P.S. Case No.285 of 2022 for alleged commission of offences under Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, by order dated 28.07.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2022 on the accusation that he along with the co-accused are in possession of contraband to the tune of 978gms (Brown Sugar).

5.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that it’s a case of false implication and inter alia relies on the order of this Court dated 24.08.2023 relating to the co-accused Imran Sha in BLAPL No.7606 of 2023.

6.

While releasing the co-accused, this Court in paragraph-7 in BLAPL No.7606 of 2023 has observed thus:-

“7. On perusal of the said order, it is seen that the Complainant Soumya Ranjan Jena in the case diary has stated that the seizure of the contraband was from the co-accused Mursid Khan @ Juma and Sk. Sajat Ali.”

7.

It is apt to state that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the bail application of the Petitioner by order dated 20.12.2022 in BLAPL No.11989 of 2022.

8.

In view of the standing order No.2, in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court, the matter has been listed before this Bench as per the assignment made by the Hon’ble ACJ.

9.

Perused the materials on record.

10.

This Court does not find any mitigating circumstances to release the Petitioner on bail and finds sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State that taking into account the manner of seizure it cannot be said that the Petitioner is similarly circumstanced with the co-accused so released. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage.

11.

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

12.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

…………………………