Amit Kumar Das @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 8 November, 2024

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Amit Kumar Das @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 8 November, 2024

Bench: V. Narasingh

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              BLAPL No. 8576 of 2024

                 Amit Kumar Das @       ....          Petitioner
                 Chintu @ Gurudeb @
                 Karana @ Pandit Dash
                 @ Premprakash Panda
                                    Mr. B.B. Routray, Advocate

                                    -versus-

             State of Odisha                  ....    Opposite Party
                                                   Mr. S.N. Das, ASC

                            CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                                    ORDER

08.11.2024 Order No.

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Spl. Case No.47 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bargarh, arising out of Bargarh Town P.S. Case No.319 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the 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.

Page 1 of 4

4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh by order dated 13.08.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

5. This is the second journey of the Petitioner to this Court.

6. This Court by order dated 23.07.2024 in BLAPL No.6904 of 2024 directed release of the Petitioner subject to verification of criminal antecedent of similar nature.

7. While considering the bail application of the Petitioner, as revealed from the order of rejection the following cases came to the fore and taking note of the same, learned Court in seisin did not entertain the bail application of the Petitioner.

"i) Bargarh Town PS Case No.51/2006 u/s.379 IPC

ii) Bargarh Sohela PS Case No. 131/2005 u/s.392 IPC

iii) Bargarh Sohela PS Case No.14/2006 u/s.458/395 IPC/25 Arms Act

iv) Bargarh Sohela PS Case No.15/2006 u/s.451/419/420/34 IPC

v) Bargarh Attabira PS Case No.04/2006 u/s.457/392 IPC.

vi) Bargarh Town PS Case No.51/2006 u/s.379 IPC Page 2 of 4

vii) Bargarh Town PS Case No.35/2011 u/s.399/402 IPC/25 Arms Act/9(B) Indian Explosive Act

viii) Bargarh Ambabhona PS Case No.96/2019 u/s.353/307 IPC/25/27 Arms Act

ix) Bargarh Town PS Case No.226/2012 u/s.457/323/365/426/34 IPC

x) Bolangir Tusura Sohela PS Case No.25/2006 u/s.395 IPC/25/27 Arms Act

xi) Bolangir Sadar PS Case No.99/2006 u/s.399/402 IPC/25 Arms Act

xii) Bolangir Patnagarh PS Case No.27/2005 u/s.394 IPC

xiii) Bolangir Sadar P.S. Case No.174/2003 u/s.302 IPC

xiv) Subarnapur Birmaharajpur PS Case No.43 of 2006 u/s.395 IPC

xv) Sambalpur Kuchinda G.R. Case No.13/2006 of SDJM Kuchinda u/s.457/380/34 IPC xvi) Sambalpur Burla PS Case No.185/2010 u/s.454/395 IPC/25/27 Arms Act xvii) Raigarh (CG) Baramkela PS Case No.14/2012 u/s.394/397/120B/201 IPC/25/27 Arms Act xviii) Bandapada (Kandhamal) PS Case No.43/2006 u/s.395 IPC."

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the cases are not under the Special Act, taking into account the manner of accusation, the Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

Page 3 of 4

9. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail in view of the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner and also relies on the order 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 and submits that the very filing of the charge sheet indicates that there is prima facie case against the Petitioner.

10. Taking into account the filing of the charge sheet as well as the criminal antecedent as noted hereinabove and rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act, this Court does not find any infirmity in the manner of appreciation by the learned Special Judge to warrant interference.

11. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application of the Petitioner at this stage.

12. Learned Court in seisin is requested to expedite the trial.

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

14. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH) Signature Not Verified Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court ofAyesha Orissa Date: 11-Nov-2024 10:43:48 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court