Tanmaya Kumar Sahu vs State of Odisha

S.K. Sahoo, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).

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

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with T.R. Case No.47 of 2020 arising out of STF Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.06 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for offences punishable under sections 21(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, which was rejected on 17.02.2021.

The earlier bail application of the petitioner in BLAPL No.2358 of 2020 was rejected as per order dated 07.12.2020. The petitioner was given liberty to renew the prayer for bail after examination of the material witnesses in the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the trial has not commenced but he stated that from the possession of the co-accused, namely, Sk. Sagba, one polythene packet containing 327 grams of brown sugar was seized which he had kept from the left side pocket of his blue colour jacket and so far as the petitioner is concerned, from his possession, two mobile phones, cash of Rs.315/- was found and that is reflected in the charge sheet, certified copy of which he has filed. It is further contended that since the contraband brown sugar has been seized from the exclusive possession of the co-accused Sk. Sagba, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably reconsidered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and stated that the raiding party members had given their statements in which they stated to have seen one tall youth was handing over one black colour polythene carry bag to said Sk. Sagba after removing the same from his inner side jacket and said Sk. Sagba received the same and put it inside his left side blue colour jacket pocket. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is that tall youth who handed over the packet containing brown sugar of commercial quantity to the co-accused and therefore, both of them are equally liable and in view of the bar under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner as per the statements of witnesses placed by the learned counsel for the State, the quantity of brown sugar seized, the bar under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and since there is no change in the circumstances after the rejection of the earlier bail application, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail.

However, taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I direct the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and if possible, to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected.

A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court for compliance.

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

.............................................