Sagar Mallick v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No. 4167 of 2021 Sagar Mallick ....

Petitioner Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate -versusState of Odisha ....

Opposite Party Ms. S. Mishra, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

21.03.2022 Order No.

04.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.

3.

The petitioner is an accused in C.T. Case No.26 of 2021, on the files of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Baliguda, arising out of Raikia P.S. Case No.42 of 2021, U/s.20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of N.D.P.S Act. 4.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Special Judge-cumAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Baliguda, by order dated 27.04.2021 in C.T. Case No.26 of 2021, arising out of Raikia P.S. Case No.42 of 2021, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5.

It is alleged that while petitioner was standing along with three others on receipt of credible information of transport

// 2 // of contraband, they were apprehended along with a motor cycle which was likely to be used as transporting.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that from the nature of the seizure, it cannot be stated that the petitioner is in conscious possession and therefore, their further continuance in custody is unwarranted and he prays to be enlarged on bail as he is in custody since 18.04.2021 and that trial has not commenced.

7.

Learned counsel for the State referring to the Memo of Seizure and the contents of the FIR states that at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner is not in conscious possession rather his conduct indicates that he is trying to indulge in transportation of contraband beyond the permissible limit in a clandestine manner.

8.

Taking into account the manner in which the seizure has been affected, this Court is of the considered opinion that it cannot be said with certainty that the petitioner is in exclusive conclusion possession of the seized material and also taking into account that the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2021 and the trial has not commenced, this Court directs the release of the petitioner on bail on such terms to be fixed by the Court in seisin of the matter.

9.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

10.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi