Sriram Hemanta Dora Vs State Of Orissa

V. Narasingh, J

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

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No.58 of 2022(N), pending before the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge(LR & LTV) Berhampur, Ganjam, arising out of Pattapur P.S. Case No.230 of 2022, for alleged commission of offences under Sections-20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. Case is pending in any other Court.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, LR & LTV, Berhampur,I/c by order dated 15.03.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2022 on the allegation that he along with co-accused involved in transportation of contraband(ganja) to the tune of 185.800kgs.

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits with vehemence that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle from which the contraband seized. As such, conscious and exclusive possession cannot be attributed to the Petitioner. Hence the rigors of Section-37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the case at hand.

It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the Petitioner is young man and since he has no criminal antecedent, he may be released on bail and adverting to the order of rejection of this Court by order dated 30.08.2023 relating to the co-accused in BLAPL Nos.4077 and 3692 of 2023(Rajan Bigneswar Dora & Singidhanu Gopal Dora @ S. Gopal Dora), it is stated that the present Petitioner is not similar footing with the said co-accused.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that taking into account the quantity of contraband and the manner in which the same was being carried, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has no knowledge of the same and referring to the twin bar contained under Section-37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act seeks rejection of the BLAPL.

On a conspectus of materials on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that that there is no prima facie case against the Petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage, in view of the twin bar contained in Section-37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer before the learned Court in seisin at the later stage.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

………………………………