AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS Act by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Phulbani Town P.S. Case No. 194 of 2018 arising out of C.T. (N) Case No. 46-B of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Phulbani, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.395/458/398/ 120-B/ 201/506 of IPC r/w. Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing dacoity and removing 38Kgs of Contraband Ganja from the Court Malkhana of Phulbani, along with co-accused persons.
Heard, Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. On being queried about the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, Mr. Panda volunteers to withhold bail to the petitioner, if he is found to have any criminal antecedent of similar nature, beside this case.
Admittedly, the petitioner was taken into custody on 12.01.2026, but in the meantime, co-accused Rashmi Ranjan Behera in BLAPL No. 12411 of 2025 and Papu @ Sandeep Digal in BLAPL No. 12436 of 2025 have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, however, the petitioner stands on similar footing with co-accused released on bail. In the context of parity, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the decision as laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; 2022 SCC Online SC 825, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-71 has held as under:-
“71.Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.”
Further, it is claimed that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account the materials so placed on record with claim of the petitioner for not having any criminal antecedents, the petitioner would be considered to have satisfied the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, if he is not having any criminal antecedent of similar nature for commission of offence under NDPS Act.
For the reasons stated hereinabove and taking into account the custody period of the petitioner and keeping in view grant of bail to co-accused persons, this Court without expressing any view on merit, admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to verification of his criminal antecedents for similar nature for commission of offence under NDPS Act.
Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed and the Petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it.
In view of the specific submission as advanced for the petitioner, the benefit of this order shall not be extended to the petitioner, if he is found to have any criminal antecedent of similar nature for commission of offences under NDPS Act.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.