Prasanta Kumar Nayak vs State Of Orissa

A.K. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail relating to Maitri Vihar P.S. Case No.398 of 2023, corresponding to T.R. No.643 of 2023, pending before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the investigation has been completed and the final charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that as per allegation of the FIR, the total quantity of 6.5 gms of contraband Brown Sugar has been recovered from the possession of the present Petitioner. The alleged quantity of contraband article recovered from the possession of the Petitioner is less than the commercial quantity, therefore, the bar under section 37 is not attracted to the facts of the present case. It was also contended that the Petitioner has one more similar criminal antecedent, however, the same is also possession of less than commercial quantity. It was also contended that the Petitioner belongs to locality there is no chance of absconding. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and condition which the Petitioner undertakes to abide by while on bail.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the allegations made in the FIR are serious in nature. It was further contended that the Petitioner has one similar nature of offence, therefore, in the event he is released on bail he might abscond justice which might lead to delay in conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the State opposed the release of the Petitioner in view of the nature and seriousness of allegation made against the Petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, further taking into consideration the seriousness and gravity of the allegation made in the FIR, and the fact that the final charge-sheet has been submitted, and the fact that the recovered contraband article is less than the commercial quantity and the bar under Section 37 is not attracted in the case, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to following conditions:-

i) he shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on bail;

ii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever,

iii) he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each date without fail.

iv) he shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a fortnight for two months, thereafter, once in a month till conclusion of the trial preferably on 'Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M to 1.00 PM.

Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

.……………………………