Orissa High Court
Imran Khan vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 20 December, 2024
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.11829 of 2024
Imran Khan .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Paik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
20.12.2024
Order No.
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case
No.26 of 2022(N), pending on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam,
Berhampur, arising out of Golanthara P.S. Case
No.108 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS 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.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned 3rd Addl.
Page 1 of 5
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Berhampur by
order dated 22.10.2024 in the aforementioned case,
the present BLAPL has been filed.
5. This is the third journey of the Petitioner to
this Court. Earlier the bail applications of the
Petitioner were disposed of by orders dated
06.02.2023 & 11.05.2023 in BLAPL Nos.9126 of 2022
and 2130 of 2023 respectively.
6. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he
along with the co-accused are found to be involved in
the transportation of contraband to the tune of 300
Kgs. 70gms (ganja) which was seized from a Ashok
Leyland Truck bearing Registration No.UP-11-BT-
7495. The vehicle allegedly stands in the name of the
Petitioner.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
Petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2022.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that in the case at hand there is glaring
violation of the Section 50 of NDPS Act and Section
41(B) of Cr.P.C.
9. The Petitioner also seeks release inter alia on
the ground of procrastination of trial.
10. Learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for bail in view of the bar contained in Section
37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act.
Page 2 of 5
11. Taking into account the submission of the
learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding
procrastination of trial, a report was called for from
the learned Trial Court. The relevant extract of the
report dated 18.12.2024 is culled out hereunder:-
“On the subject cited above, in
obedience to the direction of the Hon’ble High
Court of Orissa vide order no.3 dated
16.12.2024 passed in BLAPL No.11829 of
2024, I am to submit that, in G.R. Case No. 26
of 2022 (N) arising out of Golanthara PS Case
No.108 of 2022 pending before this court, the
examination of the I.O. namely Abhishek
Pandav (PW.11) is at the stage of further
cross-examination from the side of the
defence. Examination of the said I.O. was
scheduled to be held on 05.09.2024. On that
date though the I.O. was present, but a
petition U/s.91 of Cr.P.C. was filed from the
side of the accused Imran Khan to cause
production of certain documents.
Subsequently, another petition U/s.91 of
Cr.P.C. was also filed on behalf of the accused
Suraj Prakash. After disposal of both the
petitions vide order dtd.21.09.2024 the case
was posted to 03.10.2024 for examination of
the I.O. On 03.10.2024 again a petition was
filed on behalf of the accused Imran Khan for
adjournment of the case on the ground that
assailing the said order dtd.21.09.2024 the
accused preferred Crl. Rev. No. 566 of 2024
before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. OnPage 3 of 5
the date fixed post puja vacation, the I.O. was
absent due to his training at CAPT, Bhopal.
Finally on 01.11.2024 the I.O. of the case was
examined as PW.11 from the side of the
prosecution. But, amid cross-examination of
the I.O. as per the prayer for adjournment
made on behalf of the accused Imran Khan,
the case was adjourned to 20.11.2024 for
further cross-examination of the I.O. On
20.11.2024 and on the subsequent date i.e.
05.12.2024 again on account of non-
attendance of the said I.O. his examination
could not be conducted. Accordingly the date
was adjourned to 18.12.2024 for further cross-
examination of the said I.O. On 18.12.2024
though the I.O. was present in the court as per
the summons, on account of absence of the
accused Suraj Prakash, who was on interim
bail, direction has been given for issuance of
non-bailable warrant against the said accused,
with notice to his bailors. Now the case has
been posted to 10.01.2025 for production of
the said accused Suraj Prakash.
xxx xxx xxx
12. In view of such report, this Court is not
persuaded to hold that the trial is lingering only on
account of laches on behalf of the prosecution. Hence,
balancing the rights of an accused for speedy trial and
that of the community in terms of the prescriptions of
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act wherein twin bar has
been imposed by the legislature and keeping in view
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of StatePage 4 of 5
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7
SCC 673 which still holds the field that bail in an
allegation under the Special Act is an exception to the
normal rule that bail is the rule and jail is the
exception, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
bail application of the Petitioner.
13. Learned Trial Court is requested to conclude
the trial at the earliest and take all the steps in
accordance with law to segregate the case of the
Petitioner in view of the fact that the co-accused
Suraj Prakash has absconded. For the co-accused
who had absconded the Petitioner cannot be made to
suffer.
14. Registry is requested to do the needful.
15. Accordingly, the BLAPL stand disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
AyeshaSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYESHA ROUT
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 23-Dec-2024 15:20:46Page 5 of 5