Orissa High Court
Hrusikesh Behera vs State Of Odisha ...... Opp. Party on 9 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024
Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
--------------
Hrusikesh Behera ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Ms. Samapika Mishra, Addl. Standing
Counsel
BLAPL No. 6322 of 2024
Rohit Kumar Singh ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
For Petitioner : Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Ms. S. Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel
BLAPL No. 6444 of 2024
Damodar Mallick @
Damodar Mallik ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 1 of 23
For Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Sarangi, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Ms. S. Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
09.08.2024 Savitri Ratho, J These applications have been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Patnagarh P.S. Case No. 317 of 2023 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 44 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Patnagarh registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 21(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Charge sheet dated 07.06.2024 has been filed in this case for commission of offences punishable under Sections 21(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the present petitioners and co-accused Anirudha Meher.
3. The prayer for bail of the petitioner- Hrusikesh Behera has been rejected on 25.04.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patnagarh.
4. The earlier application BLAPL No. 36 of 2024 filed by the petitioner Rohit Kumar Singh had been dismissed by me on BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 2 of 23 09.01.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to move for bail afresh after completion of the investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved the learned Court below for bail again and the prayer has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, Patnagarh on 19.06.2024.
5. The earlier application BLAPL No. 38 of 2024 filed by the petitioner Damodar Mallick @ Damodar Mallik had been dismissed by me on 09.01.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to move for bail afresh after completion of the investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved the learned Court below for bail again and the prayer has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, Patnagarh on 19.06.2024.
6. These applications were listed before me alongwith BLAPL No. 6620 of 2024 filed by co-accused Anirudha Meher. BLAPL No. 6620 of 2024 was withdrawn by the learned counsel while these applications were heard together as they arise out of the same FIR and judgment was reserved.
PROSECUTION ALLEGATIONS
7. The prosecution allegations in brief is that on 11.12.2023, at 02.00 p.m., O.I.C. of Patnagarh Police Station received information that one Anirudha Meher of Bindhanpathar BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 3 of 23 Police Station Patnagarh is transporting Corex Cough syrup in his bike and will transport the same to Belpada side. After receipt the information the S.I. of Patnagarh P.S. along with the staff were proceeded to the spot for verification of veracity information. Then, they rushed to the spot along with witnesses and after reaching at Bindhanpadar Chowk at about 3.00 p.m. and verified the information. Then, they concealed themselves near Bindhanpathar. At about 3.30 p.m. they noticed that one Honda CB Shine bike having Registration No.OR-03-H-6277 was coming from Bindhanpathar village being driven by Anirudha Meher with one big plastic bag behind him. Suspecting to have illegal transportation of corex cough syrup they managed to detain him on the main road. After completing all the formalities they searched his bag in the presence of an Executive Magistrate and found three nos. of cardboard cartoon containing Tuscorex bottle and each bottle contain 100 m.l. capacity having Codeine Phosphate of 10 mg. in each bottle. One card board cartoon have 100 nos. of sealed Tuscorex bottle and three card board cartoons contain total of 300 nos. of Tuscorex bottles, in total nos. of 200 nos. of company sealed contraband Tuscorex cough syrup containing codenine Phosphate and tripolidine Hydrochloride Syrup having Batch no. BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 4 of 23 TBHW1094 and 100 nos. of company sealed contraband Tuscorex cough syrup containing codeine Phosphate and Tripolidine Bydrochloride syrup having batch no. TBHW1047 having similar logo, sticker. All total 30,000 M.L. (30 kgs.) mixture contained Codeine Phosphate in 300 sealed Tuscorex Cough Syrup bottles was recovered. During further interrogation, Anirudha Meher disclosed that he had procured the above contraband Tuscorex cough syrup from Damodar Mallik of Hatisalpada and Rohit Kumar Singh of Chatiapali and they were selling it illegally to different drug peddlers for their personal gain. T5his information was recorded under Section - 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. So the cough syrup was seized alongwith the Honda CB Shine bike bearing Registration No. OR-03-H-6277 from Anirudha Meher, seizure list was prepared and he was arrested and forwarded to Court on 12.12.2023. On 12.12.2023, the houses of Damodar Mallik in Hatisalpada and Rohit Kumar Singh in Chatiapali were raided and they were apprehended. Nothing incriminating appears to have been seized from them but their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where they have confessed their guilt .Damodar Mallik specifically stated that he used to place orders for cough syrup by calling up 7328856724 and they would give the BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 5 of 23 cough syrup to Anirudha Meher for selling to drug peddlers. They were arrested and forwarded to Court on the same day. The I.O. searched the house of Anirudha Meher but did not find any Corex cough syrup bottles. The I.O. again revisited the spot, examined the complainant and other witnesses. He was transferred, so he handed over investigation to the I.I.C., Patnagarh Police Station on 09.02.2024. Damodar Mallik (his name has been mentioned as Damodar Naik) has been examined again on 20.04.2024 by the IIC and after going through the CDR and SDR, it was ascertained that mobile no. 8637255902 belongs to Hrusikesh Behera of Bardapada, Attapur of Baleswar District and a number of calls had been made to the said number by Damodar Mallik from the number 7328856734. Hruskesh Behera was apprehended on 23.04.2024 at Soro, Baleswar and his confessional statement was recorded. He stated that he was working in Parhi Distributor and used to take orders from different person who would call him and he and the owner Amitav Parhi would supply cough syrup through courier. 300 bottles of cough syrup have been sent DTDC courier to Damodar Mallik in December and before that Tuscorex cough syrup has been sent to him 4 to 5 times. His mobile with SIM 7328856734 was seized from him alongwith his Aadhaar card e BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 6 of 23 owner Amitav Parhi would was arrested and forwarded to Court on 24.04.2024.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS Hrusikesh Behera. Petitioner in BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024
8. Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner - Hrusikesh Behera has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR which has been registered under Sections 21(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act on 11.12.2023 against three persons. He is employed as a salesman in Parhi Distributors and acts as per the direction of the proprietor - Amitav Parhi. Except the statements of the co-accused Damodar Mallik, who was arrested on the basis of the statement of the co accused Anirudha Meher from whom the cough syrup was allegedly seized and his own confession before the police that he used to send cough syrup to the co accused on receiving their call, there is no other material to implicate him. He has further submitted that he is in custody since 24.04.2024 and investigation in the case so far as the petitioner is concerned, is complete. As he does not have any criminal antecedents and considering the quantity of cough syrup seized, Section - 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act will not be attracted, for which he should be released on bail.
BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 7 of 23 Rohit Kumar Singh. Petitioner in BLAPL No. 6322 of 2024
9. Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2023 and the basis of his implication is statement of co- accused, Anirudha Meher and his own confession before the police. Nothing incriminating has been seized from his possession. He has also submitted that the prosecution has alleged that he has four criminal antecedents (1) Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.153 of 2010, (2) Bolangir Two P.S. Case No.03 of 2012, (3) Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.503 of 2018 and (4) Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.382 of 2023, but he has been acquitted in (1) Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.153 of 2010 and (2) Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.03 of 2012. That apart, none of these cases are under the N.D.P.S. Act. Hence Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act will not be a bar for considering his prayer for bail. He has further submitted that investigation in the case so far as the petitioner is concerned, is complete.
Damodar Mallick @ Damodar Mallik . Petitioner in BLAPL No. 6444 of 2024
10. Mr. K.K. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2023 and the BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 8 of 23 basis of his implication is statement of co-accused, Anirudha Meher and his own confession before the police there are no other materials connecting him with the said offence and nothing incriminating has been seized from him. As he does not have any criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act will not be a bar for considering his prayer for bail. He has further submitted that it is alleged that he is alleged to have a number of criminal antecedents, but none of them involve any offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. He has finally submitted that as investigation in the case so far as the petitioner is concerned, is complete, he may be released on bail.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE COUNSEL
11. Ms. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner Hrusikesh Behera works in Parhi Distributors which is a wholeseller of medicine including cough syrup. The CDR records of the mobile numbers of the petitioners Hrusikesh Behera and Damodar Mallik reveal that Damodar Mallik has contacted petitioner Hrusikesh repeatedly from his mobile number 7328856724. As per their confessions, the petitioner Hrusikesh Behera used to send the cough syrup to petitioner Damodar Mallik through courier on receiving a call from BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 9 of 23 him and he has done this on a number of occasions and he had sent 300 bottles to him in December, 2023, which have been seized in this case from co-accused Anirudha Meher. As the cough syrup contained codeine and total weight of the cough syrup is 30 kgs. it will come within commercial quantity as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hira Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh :2020 SCC Online SC 382: AIR 2020 SC 3255, for which the restriction under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act will be attracted . She has finally submitted that investigation has been kept open further investigation and arrest of co-accused Amitav Parhi, for which the petitioners should not be released on bail. CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS
12. The reports of I.I.C Patnagarh Police Station regarding criminal antecedents of the petitioners are available in the case diary.
Petitioner Hrusikesh Behera is reported to have no criminal antecedents.
Petitioner Rohit Kumar Singh, is reported to be involved in the following cases:
(i) Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.153 of 2010 under Sections 307, 379, 34 of IPC.BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 10 of 23
(ii) Bolangir Two P.S. Case No.03 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 506 of IPC.
(iii) Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.503 of 2018 under Sections 294, 341, 506, 34 of IPC.
(iv) Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.382 of 2023 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 34 of IPC.
Petitioner Damodar Mallick @ Damodar Mallik is reported to be accused in the following cases:
(i) Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.268 of 2016 under Sections 294, 323, 341, 506, 34 of IPC.
(ii)Bolangir Two P.S. Case No.150 of 2018 under Section 3 of OPG Act.
(iii)Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.370 of 2018 under Sections 294, 307, 323, 341, 506, 34 of IPC.
(iv) Tusura P.S. Case No.16 of 2016 under Sections 147, 149, 294, 323, 341, 506 of IPC.
STATUTORY PROVISIONs
13. While considering an application for bail of an accused who is in custody in connection with an offence under Section 19, Section 24, Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity, in addition to the provisions under Section - BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 11 of 23 439 of the Cr.P.C, the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act have to be kept in mind. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act reads as under:-
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail."
CASE LAW
14. In the case of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. Rajesh & Ors. reported as (2020) 12 SCC 122, the Supreme Court discussed BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 12 of 23 the requirement of Section 37 and the meaning of the term 'reasonable grounds'. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below : -
"19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.
20. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 13 of 23 addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for."
(emphasis supplied) In the case of NCB vs. Mohit Aggarwal : 2022 SCC Online SC 891 : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613, the Supreme Court, while cancelling the bail granted to the accused who had been granted bail by the High Court on the ground that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was the only material available against him, has held as follows:
"16. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the appellant-NCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of law laid down by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in Tofan Singh (supra), wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside. However, this was not the only material that the appellant-NCB had relied on to oppose the bail BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 14 of 23 application filed by the respondent. The appellant-NCB had specifically stated that it was the disclosures made by the respondent that had led the NCB team to arrive at and raid the godown of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria which resulted in the recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in the form of tablets, injections and syrups. Counsel for the appellant-NCB had also pointed out that it was the respondent who had disclosed the address and location of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile phones of all co-accused including the respondent herein showed that they were in touch with each other.
17. Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act. We are not persuaded by the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and the observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage."BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 15 of 23
15. In the case of Hira Singh (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that in case of seizure of narcotics drugs or psychotropic substances mixed with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the "small or commercial quantity" of the Narcotics Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. After referring to various provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and the notifications issued in that regard by the Government of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"8.4. Even considering the definition of "manufacture", "manufactured drug" and the "preparation" conjointly, the total weight of such "manufactured drug" or "preparation", including the neutral material is required to be considered while determining small quantity or commercial quantity. If it is interpreted in such a manner, then and then only, the objects and purpose of NDPS Act would be achieved. Any other intention to defeat the object and purpose of enactment of NDPS Act viz. to Act is deterrent".
In the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu : the following questions had been referred to the larger Bench : BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 16 of 23
"1. Whether an officer "empowered under Section 42 of the NDPS Act" and/or "the officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act" are "Police Officers" and therefore statements recorded by such officers would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act; and
2. What is the extent, nature, purpose and scope of the power conferred under Section 67 of the NDPS Act available to and exercisable by an officer under section 42 thereof, and whether power under Section 67 is a power to record confession capable of being used as substantive evidence to convict an accused?".
The Court answered the reference in paragraph 155, which is extracted below :
"155.We answer the reference by stating:
(i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers"
within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
(ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act"...... BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 17 of 23
16. In the case of Manoj Kumar Bhuyan and others vs. State of Orissa : (2021) 83 OCR 619 ; 2021 (II) OLR CUT 655, where the petitioners had been chargsheeted for commission of offences punishable under Section - 21(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act as huge quantity of Eskuf cough syrup containing codeine had been recovered from them / at their instance, while considering their prayer for bail, I had expressed my anguish at the lackadaisical investigation , observing as follows :
"Here is a case, where a case under Section 21 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act was registered against the four petitioners as 3500 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup allegedly containing codeine were recovered from them, which they allegedly confessed was being taken for drugging purpose. In view of the large quantity of the cough syrup seized, it was the duty of the prosecution to conclude the investigation without leaving any loose ends or lacuna. But although almost one year has elapsed since the case was registered and charge sheet is stated to be filed, neither the chemical analysis report nor any materials in support of the allegation that the petitioners were indulging in sale of the cough syrup for drugging purpose other than recording a confession of two lines that they are guilty, has been produced before this Court.
This appears to be a similar case.BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 18 of 23
In another case, I had expressed my dissatisfaction that in some Police Stations in the State of Odisha, relating to cases of recovery of illegal and unauthorised selling of cough syrup containing codeine or cough syrup laced / mixed with tablets to make it more potent, the cases are not registered under the N.D.P.S. Act , but under the I.P.C.
17. I have heard the learned the learned counsel and gone through the case diary. As per the allegations and the confessions of the accused persons, the cough syrup seized from the co-accused Anirudha Meher has been supplied to him from the stock of Parhi Distributors- a medicine wholeseller. But there is no material collected by the police to connect the present petitioners with the main accused - Anirudha Meher other than their confessions and SDR and CDR records of their mobile phones that petitioner Damodar Mallik used to call up petitioner Hrusikesh Behera on his mobile number on a number of occasions to place orders for cough syrup, which petitioner Hrusikesh used to send to him through courier. No other material has been collected by the police to connect the petitioners with the cough syrup recovered from the co accused Anirudha Meher. Unfortunately, there has been no effort / investigation by the police to verify if the batch numbers of the BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 19 of 23 cough syrup bottles which have been seized from the possession of accused Anirudha Meher match with the batch numbers of the cough syrup received by Parhi Distributors - the medicine wholeseller from the manufacturer or if any cough syrup has been sent to petitioner Damodar Mallik through courier. In fact from the case diary it is apparent that the petitioner Hrusikesh Behera has been arrested from his house and only his phone and Aadhaar card have been seized from him. The I.O. has apparently not gone to the courier office or the premises of Parhi Distributor, the medicine wholeseller, for the purpose of investigation. There is therefore no material in the case diary to connect the cough syrup which has been seized from the co accused Anirudha Meher with the petitioners.
As noted earlier, from the reports of the IIC Patanagarh available in the case diary, it is apparent that petitioner Hrusikesh Behera does not have any criminal antecedents and the cases in which petitioners Damodar Mallick @ Damodar Mallik and Rohit Kumar Singh are involved do not involve any offence under the N.D.P.S. Act.
18. As per the decision rendered in the case of Hira Singh, the cough syrup seized in this case comes under the category of BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 20 of 23 commercial quantity and the only incriminating material presently available against them is confession of the co-accused and their own confession before the police, in view of the decision in Tofan Singh (supra) regarding value of the statement of an accused recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and since the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents under the N.D.P.S., I am constrained to observe that the twin requirements under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are satisfied, for which the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail The prayers for bail of the petitioners is accordingly allowed but subject to verification that that they do not have any antecedents under the N.D.P.S. Act or are involved in any case where the allegations involve illegal / unauthorised selling or transportation of cough syrup.
19. The petitioners - Hrusikesh Behera petitioner in BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024, Rohit Kumar Singh petitioner in BLAPL No. 6322 of 2024 and Damodar Mallick @ Damodar Mallik petitioner in BLAPL No. 6444 of 2024, shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter subject to verification of the BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 21 of 23 their criminal antecedents as described in the previous paragraph, including the following conditions:
(i) They shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) They shall not try to tamper with evidence or influence prosecution witnesses.
(iii) They will co-operate with further investigation and report before the Patnagarh Police Station once a week, preferably on a Sunday between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. for a period of four months and thereafter once a month, preferably on the first Sunday between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.
20. The prosecution will be at liberty to file application(s) for cancellation of bail or recall of this order, in case any other incriminating material is discovered to connect the petitioners with the seized cough syrup or they are involvement in a case under the NDPS Act.
21. It is made clear that the observations in this judgment have been made for the purpose of deciding the bail applications on basis of the materials available in the case diary produced before this Court and shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Therefore, the trial court should proceed with BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 22 of 23 the trial without being influenced by any of the findings or observations made in this judgment.
22. Copy of this order be handed over to Ms. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for onward transmission to the I.I.C., Patnagarh Police Station.
..........................
(Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 9th August, 2024.
S.K. Behera, Senior Stenographer.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 20-Aug-2024 20:03:09 BLAPL No. 4219 of 2024 Page 23 of 23