Satyaprakash Kanungo vs State Of Odisha

A.K. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical 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 in connection with T.R. Case No-123 of 2024, arising out of Sahidnagar P.S.Case No.136 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Khurda for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29of the N.D.P.S. 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 09.03.2024. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the F.I.R. submitted that the alleged contraband ganja being 20 kg.800 gms. was not recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Petitioner. He further contended that the same was recovered from the possession of accused Raj Kumar Arukh and Nrusingha Charan Naik and on the basis of the confessional statement of the abovenamed accused, the Petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the present case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the bar under section 37 of the Act would not be attracted to the fact of the present case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents of similar nature.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of his involvement in similar criminal offences. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case this Court observes that the alleged contraband ganja was recovered from the above two accused persons and the Petitioner has been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused persons. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents of similar nature, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail.

Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing 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 Court in seisin over the matter. Release of the Petitioner shall be subject to the terms and conditions as would be fixed by the learned court in seisin over the matter.

It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the Petitioner is having any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked.

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

..………………………..