Orissa High Court
Bhagaban Sukri vs State Of Odisha ... Opp. Party on 9 March, 2021
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
BLAPL No. 8053 of 2020
Bhagaban Sukri ... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ... Opp. party
03. 09.03.2021 This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
in connection with T.R. Case No.65 of 2020 arising out of
Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.160 of 2020 pending in the
Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge,
Jeypore for offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(C)
of the N.D.P.S. Act.
The petitioner moved an application for bail
before the Court of learned Special Judge, Jeypore which
was rejected on 30.09.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.09.2020 and
on 29.08.2020 at about 9.30 p.m., one truck bearing
Registration No.RJ-GA-3959 was detained on NH.26.
When the said vehicle was intercepted by the S.I. of
police of Jeypore Sadar police station, the driver of the
truck fled away and when the truck was searched, thirty
two nos. of white colour plastic gunny bags were found
loaded in the truck and when those gunny bags were
opened, it was found to be containing contraband ganja
of commercial quantity. It is further submitted that
during course of investigation, one Gopal Ram, who was
the driver of the offending truck was arrested and he
attempted to commit suicide in police custody for which
he was taken to D.H.H. Jeypore, where he was declared
dead but from the mobile phone of the deceased driver,
it was found that he had made some contacts with the
present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that there is absolutely no clinching
material against the petitioner relating to his
involvement in the alleged transportation of ganja in the
truck in question and on the basis of available materials
on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of
the offence and there is no criminal antecedent against
the petitioner and therefore, the bail application of the
petitioner may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State produced the case
diary and opposed the prayer for bail and fairly
submitted that except the CDR and SDR of the mobile
phone of the deceased driver, there is no other material
against the petitioner. He fairly submitted that nothing
is available in the case diary to show what was the topic
of conversation between the petitioner and the deceased
driver.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of
accusation against the petitioner, absence of any
clinching material against the petitioner to show the
petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime and keeping
in view the provision under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act
and since on the basis of the available materials on
record, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of
the offence and in absence of any criminal antecedent, it
cannot be said that while on bail the petitioner is likely to
commit any offence and taking into account the period of
detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Let the petitioner be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000.00
(rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties
each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
in seisin over the matter with further terms and
conditions as the learned Court may deem just and
proper.
The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
P