IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.825 of 2024
Suresh Jala Petitioner
….
Mr. S.K. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa Opposite Party
….
Mr. G.N. Rout, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
31.07.2024
Order No.
09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with
Spl. (NDPS) Case No.126 of 2023, pending in the
Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.
Judge, Kantamal, arising out of Manamunda P.S.
Case no.109 of 2023, for commission of alleged
offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.
3. 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.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his
application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Kantamal by
1
Page of 5
order dated 12.01.2024, the present BLAPL has been
filed.
5. This is the third journey of the Petitioner to
this Court. Earlier the bail application of the Petitioner
was rejected by order dated 04.07.2023 in BLAPL
No.7048 of 2023 since the same was during the
currency of investigation. Thereafter the Petitioner
moved this Court in BLAPL No.12950 of 2023, which
was rejected by order dated 18.12.2023.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
Petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2023 on the
accusation that he along with the co-accused are
involved in the transportation of contraband (ganja)
to the tune of 1 quintal 4 k.g of Ganja.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the deposition of P.Ws 2,3 and 4, who
are the Home Guards have resiled and referring to
the cross-examination of P.Ws 6 and 7, independent
witnesses, it patently falsifies the claim of the
prosecution. It is further urged that the tenor of the
evidence of Executive Magistrate, P.W.1 & Home
Guard, P.W.5, further continuance of the Petitioner in
custody is not warranted.
8. In this context, he relies on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Ankur Chaudhary vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh in SLP(Crl.) No.4648 of
2024 dated 28.05.2024.
Page 2 of 5
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State
submits that it is trite that during the course of
ongoing trial, it is not open for the Court to sift the
evidence on record and it is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the State that in view of the
quantity involved the bar contained in Section
37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is squarely attracted.
Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner does not
merit consideration. He also relies on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of State by the
Inspector of Police vs. B. Ramu in SLP(Crl.)
No(s).8137 of 2022 dated 12.02.2024.
10. On instruction, learned counsel submits that
the Petitioner is the first offender.
11. As urged by the learned counsel for the State
it is indeed trite that the assessment of evidence is
clearly not to be undertaken while considering the bail
application.
But there is no absolute bar for the same, as
has been clarified in the case relied upon by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner in the case of
Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh(Supra).
12. Considering that some of the official witnesses
have not supported the prosecution and the
statement of the independent witnesses belies the
case of the prosecution and taking into account the
manner of accusation, this Court finds substance in
Page 3 of 5
the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner
that conscious and exclusive possession of the
contraband cannot be attributed to the Petitioner.
13. Since the Petitioner is in custody for more than
a year and ordinarily resides within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court in seisin, this Court directs
the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to
be fixed by the learned Court in seisin subject to
verification of criminal antecedent.
14. It is needless to state that the observations
made herein are only for the purpose of consideration
of the bail application. They ought not to be viewed
as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the
complicity of the Petitioner which, has to be
adjudicated, independently in the impending trial.
15. If it comes to fore that the Petitioner has any
criminal antecedent, this order shall not be given
effect to.
16. Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner
shall appear before the jurisdictional police station
once a month on such date and time to be fixed by
the learned Court in seisin till the conclusion of trial.
Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to
the Court in seisin.
17. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
Page 4 of 5
18. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted
as per the rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-Aug-2024 17:31:00
Page 5 of 5