V. Narasingh, J
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case No.53 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur, arising
out of Padmapur P.S. Case No.46 of 2023 for commission of the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the N.D.P.S Act.
3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned
P.S. Case is pending in any other Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s. 439 Cr.P.C by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur, by
order dated 06.01.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
5. This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court.
6. The bail application of the Petitioner was not entertained by order dated 09.05.2023 in BLAPL No.5045 of 2023 taking into account the quantity of
the contraband (ganja) seized to the tune of 232 Kg. and the motion was during currency of investigation. Post charge sheet the bail application of the
Petitioner was not entertained by order dated 01.12.2023 in BLAPL No.11664 of 2023 and while doing so, this Court took note of the statement of 2
witnesses C.Ws.6 and 7 who are the co-villagers and stated to have identified the present Petitioner running away from the spot from where the
contraband was recovered. And, also taking into account the antecedents of the Petitioner of similar nature.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the meanwhile the said two witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and they have not
supported the prosecution Hence, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted.
8. To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the depositions of the witnesses which are on record. P.Ws.1 and 2 have
categorically stated in their examination-in-chief that they do not know the accused standing in the dock.
9. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that during currency of trial it is not open for this Court to make a microscopic
examination of the materials on record more so when other witnesses including Executive Magistrate and the I.O are yet to be examined and also in
view of the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner and referring to Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S Act.
10. According to the learned counsel for the State, prima facie case is well made out against the present Petitioner.
11. Taking into the nature of allegation and the statement of the witnesses as noted, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such
terms to be fixed by the learned Court.
12. Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once every two months on such date and time to be
fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.
13. It is needless to state that the observations made herein are for the purpose of consideration of the bail application only. And, the complicity of the
Petitioner has to be adjudicated on the basis of the materials on record independently in the impending trial.
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
..……………………………
Â
