High CourtsSingle Bench

Nilamani Luha vs State Of Orissa

Orissa High Court · Decided on 18 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 OHC CK 0057

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. K. Panigrahi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 13 Of 2021
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

22 paragraphs · 372 words

S. K. Panigrahi, J.

1.

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2.

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

3.

The petitioner being in custody in connection with Phiringia P.S. Case No.85 of 2020 corresponding to C.T Case No.57 of 2020 pending in the

Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)

(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act has prayed for his release on bail.

4.

It is alleged by the informant- Pradeep Kumar Raula, S.I of Phiringia P.S that he received information that four persons are in possession of huge

quantity ganja and transporting the same by means of a Pulser bike bearing Regd. No.OD-03-P-4381 and one new Pulser bike without number. On

receiving information, the police party conducted a raid along with two numbers of witnesses. After about half and hour, two numbers of Motor Cycle

coming from Nuapadar side. The police personnel stopped their bike loaded with huge bags in between rider and pillion. The accused persons also

stated that they were smuggling the Ganja. The informant recovered and seized 51 kg. 300 gms from each of the bike totaling 102 kg. 600 gms.

including the bags from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused persons.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation has been substantially progressed. There is no specific overt act tact attributed to the

petitioner. The petitioner is languishing custody since 17.10.2020.

6.Learned counsel for the State vehemently objected to the prayer of the petitioner for release on bail. It is submitted that the quantity of Ganja seized

is much higher than the commercial quantity.

7.

Considering the submissions made, facts and circumstances of the case and the quantity of Ganja seized, I am not inclined to release the petitioner

on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected.

8.

The Bail Application is dismissed.

9.

As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the

High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March

2020.