Radhakanta Nayak v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.5915 of 2021 Radhakanta Nayak ....

Petitioner Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate -versusState of Odisha ....

Opposite Party Mr. M.K. Mohanty, A.S.C.

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.

ORDER

23.03.2022 03.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Perused the F.I.R., case diary and other relevant documents as well as statement of the witnesses.

3.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4.

The Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.26 of 2021 arising out of Adava P.S. Case No.14 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(a)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 27(1)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. 5.

The prosecution story as per the F.I.R. lodged by the informant i.e. S.I. Police, Adava P.S. received information regarding cultivation of cannabis plants over a Government land recorded in Khata No.48 by the petitioner and others. On receiving such information the petitioner and

// 2 // others proceeded to the spot and found cultivation of cannabis plants which is around 1,24,290 numbers of cannabis plants. They destroyed the said plantation and after observing all the formalities arrested the petitioner and others and forwarded to the court. 6.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since then and investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet in the case has been submitted. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested in one case and he was remanded in many other cases of similar nature. The seized contraband crops have been destroyed by the local police. Further he submits that there is no scope for absconding or fleeing from the hands of the justice and that the Petitioner is a local man. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not attracted against the petitioner.

7.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner and submits that the petitioner has thirteen number of criminal cases against this name including cases under N.D.P.S. Act and illegal trafficking of contraband articles is rising day-by day and no leniency should be shown to the Petitioner or similarly situated persons. He further submits that the petitioner is a financer and he has engaged the young persons in the locality for planting of the cannabis trees in hilly areas. Therefore, the prayer for bail application of the petitioner may be rejected.

8.

Considering submissions made by the parties and the period of custodial detention of the Petitioner, it is directed that let the Petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter subject to the following conditions:-

// 3 // I.

The Petitioner shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature;

II.

he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever;

III.

he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each date without fail;

IV.

he shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a week preferably on 'Sunday' in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till conclusion of trial; and V.

He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court in seisin over the matter and shall furnish his address and mobile number to the police from time to time and shall surrender his travel documents/passport, if any, before the trial court.

Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

9.

It is open for the court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper.

10.

The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Jagabandhu