AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Savitri Ratho, J
This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with Balasore-II Excise Station, Balasore P.R. No. 161/2023-2024 corresponding to Special Case No. 350 of 2023 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Balasore registered under Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on 26.12.2023 by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balasore in Special Case No. 350 of 2023.
The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 22.12.2023 when the OIC of Balasore-II Excise Station and his staff were conducting patrolling duty on NH-16 near Bampada Chhak, the present petitioner was coming on a Honda Activa scooter. He tried to escape on seeing the excise staff, and was detained on suspicion. On search, 80 grams of brown sugar was recovered from his possession. As he could not produce any authority in support of such possession, the ganja was seized and he was arrested.
Mr. Guruprasad Behera, learned counsel appearing from the virtual High Court at Balasore on behalf of the petitioner submits that though it is stated that the brown sugar has been recovered from the pant pocket of the petitioner and option under Section 50 of the NDPS Act which requires strict compliance has been complied with. But in reality, Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been violated as signature of the petitioner does not appear in the 2 documents where option was allegedly given to him and that he has filed the said documents as Annexure-3 to this application.
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State who has obtained instructions in the case submits that the petitioner has written in his own hand writing that option has been given to him but inadvertently his signature does not appear in the said document. He further submits that the witnesses have stated that Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been complied with for which the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner should not be accepted.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the quantity of brown sugar seized, I am satisfied that Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Hence, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail.
The petitioner- Sri Prashanta Puthal shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, after verifying that he does not have any criminal antecedents, including the following conditions:
(i) He will not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) He will not threaten or try to influence prosecution witnesses.
The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
No observation in this order should influence the learned trial court in any manner during trial as they have been made for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for bail.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
……………………………