Pooja Mohanty Vs State Of Odisha

Savitri Ratho, J

This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with Info City P.S. case No. 439 of 2023 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 674 of 2023, pending in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda, At- Bhubaneswar, registered under Section 21(b), 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner and the co-accused persons Susil Kumar Biswal and Ralvin Patasani @ Lucky has been rejected on 05.01.2024 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Khurda, At- Bhubaneswar.

The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 30.12.2023 morning, on receiving credible information regarding selling of brown sugar by the three accused persons at Chirgoltola Basti Play Ground under Infocity PS, the informant and her team went to the spot, detained the three accused persons and on search, 19 gms of brown sugar and cash of Rs.25,040/- was recovered from their conscious possession. On interrogation, they admitted to have come there, to sell brown sugar to the general public and that they were doing this business since long. As they could not produce any authority/license for possessing the brown sugar and cash, that seized, and they were arrested.

Mr. B. K. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a woman aged about 26 years and she does not have any criminal antecedents. The brown sugar has been seized from the possession of the co-accused Susil Kumar Biswal and Ralvin Patasani @ Lucky and not from the petitioner. As the brown sugar has been seized from the possession of the co-accused persons and the petitioner is a woman with no criminal antecedents, she may be released on bail.

Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that allegations are that the accused persons had gathered at the spot to sell brown sugar and brown sugar was recovered from the co-accused and huge amount of cash has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner for which she could not give any valid explanation. As investigation is in progress, she should not be released on bail.

Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner and as investigation is in progress, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.

The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed.

It is open to the petitioner to move for bail afresh after completion of the investigation.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

…………………………….