AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Savitri Ratho, J
Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel.
Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of non-compliance of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He also submits that there has been non-compliance of section 100 of the Cr.P.C. He relies on the decisions of this Court in the case of Raghu @ Rahul Rajput Thakur vs. State of Orissa in BLAPL No. 2430 of 2021, decided on 14.10.2022, reported in 2022(II) ILR, Cuttack page 590 in support of his submission.
Ms. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be decided by the learned trial Court during trial and the learned Standing Counsel specify what is the nature of violation of the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, so that she can counter his contentions. Section 37 of the NDPS Act will be a bar for considering the prayer for bail of the petitioner. She also submits that non-compliance of these provisions will not entitle the petitioner to bail. In support of her submission, she relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh reported in 1994 (III) SCC page 299 and State by the Inspector of Police vs. B. Ramu reported in 2024 INSC page114.
Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to cite some more decision in support of his submission.
List this case on 02.05.2024 to enable the counsel for both sides to address the Court regarding non-compliance of Section 50 & 42 of the NDPS Act.
...……………………………