Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ori) 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
V. NARASINGH, J.
Bhisma Behera – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha - Opposite Party
Blapl No.13079 Of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, ASC., Adv.

In matters of personal liberty, meticulous adherence to procedural timelines should not compromise the accused's right to default bail, especially after the statutory period for charge sheet filing has elapsed.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20(b)(ii)

(C) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439 and Section 167(2) - Application for bail rejected by Sessions Judge - Accused was in custody for more than 180 days without charge sheet, hence entitled to default bail - Delay of three days in bail compliance not unreasonable as no strict time limit was stipulated by the Court - Right to personal liberty emphasized. (Paras 11, 17, 19)

(B) Indefeasible rights of the accused - The right to be released on default bail cannot be defeated due to inadvertent delay in filing bonds if the statutory period for filing a charge sheet has expired. (Paras 11, 17)

(C) Personal liberty - Courts must lean in favor of personal liberty, especially in matters concerning bail applications, avoiding overly technical interpretation of procedural law. (Para 17-A)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in NDPS Case, sought bail after custody exceeding 180 days. Previous bail applied was rejected, with charges filed post request for bail, leading to this application claiming entitlement to default bail.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the delay in granting bail was not unreasonable, emphasizing the indefeasible right of the accused and allowing bail on conditions fixed by the Court in seisin.

Issues: Whether the accused’s right to default bail was extinguished by a brief delay in furnishing bail bonds post-charge sheet filing?

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that personal liberty and the right to default bail supersede the State's concerns regarding the timing of bail bond submission, reinforcing that technicality should not override rights to liberty, provided conditions are fulfilled timely.

Result: The BLAPL stands disposed of, directing the petitioner to be released on bail subject to conditions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's background and bail details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of accusation and custody period (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10)
3. interpretations of legal rights regarding bail (Para 11 , 13 , 17)
4. prosecution's argument on bail duration (Para 12 , 16 , 19)
5. final order and guidance for bail release (Para 21 , 24)

Judgment :
V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with 2(a)CC Case No.69 of 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack, arising out of E.I. & E.B, Unit- I, Cuttack P.R. Case No.02 of 2023-24 , for commission of alleged offences under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPLs, 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 Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack, by order dated 15.11.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPLs have been filed.

5. This is the second journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier the bail application of the Petitioner was disposed of by order dated 11.07.2023 in BLAPL No.6044 of 2023.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2023 on the accusation that he along with two other accused persons were involved in the transportation of contraband to the tune of 100kgs (Ganja).

7. It is the case of the prosecution that the contraband was seized from the vehicle which was being driven by the Petitioner.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since in the case at hand 180 days remand was complete on 29.09.2023 and admittedly the final form has not been submitted, he filed an application under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. to be released on default bail on 03.10.2023 and on the said date, the bail was granted with certain terms and conditions and on the self-same day, when the Petitioner was in the process of complying with the conditions as stipulated, the prosecution filed the charge sheet.

9. The Petitioner admittedly submitted his bail bond on 06.10.2023, but the same was not accepted since final P.R. has already been submitted and the learned Court was of the considered view that since the Petitioner “having not actually exercised his indefeasible right by filing the bail bonds by that time, the same stands extinguished”. Assailing the same, this BLAPL has been filed.

10. It is apt to note here that the Petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court by order dated 28.11.2023 and the same was extended by order dated 12.12.2023 and after the currency of the interim bail the Petitioner has surrendered as per the surrender memo which is on record.

11. Primarily relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. Ravindran vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , (2021) 2 SCC 485 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that admittedly the final form was not submitted within the time stipulated in terms of the NDPS Act and merely because there was delay of three days in complying with the order directing release, taking into account the nature of conditions imposed, it cannot be held that the Petitioner’s indefeasible right is wiped out.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while not disputing that indefeasible right had accrued in favour of the Petitioner submits that the same cannot be extended for an indefinite period and as the Petitioner was not able to furnish the bail bond within reasonable period in fact took three days, there is no illegality in rejection of his bail application and in this context he relied on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sumanta Sabara and Another vs. State of Odisha , 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 578 .

13. There is no cavil abo