The court emphasized the necessity for prima facie evidence to justify arrests, underscoring fundamental rights protections against arbitrary state actions.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

“To strike the balance between the needs of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of the citizen from oppression and injustice at the hands of the law enforcement machinery on the other is a perennial problem of statecraft”- observed Justice V.R. Krishna lyer quoting Lewis Mayers in his celebrated judgment in the case of Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani , AIR 1978 SC 1025 This Court, in the present cases is called upon to embark upon a path similar, for the cries of the accused persons for protection of their sanctimonious right of liberty is pitted against the demand of the investigating agency to curb the same, ostensibly for investigation of what according to it, is a heinous crime. Underlying the legal battle however is the more cherished objective of the court to uphold the majesty of the rule of law under the Constitutional jurisprudence.

This in essence, is the task cut out before this Court in these cases.

Both these applications relate to the same case and have been filed by the petitioners seeking bail therein. As such both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners in these bail applications are in custody since 27.05.2023 in connection with Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No. 366 dated 12.11.2022 corresponding to Special Case No. 294 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Balasore for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 21 (C)/29 of NDPS Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 12.11.2022, upon receiving reliable information regarding transportation of contraband brown sugar, the police personnel of Sahadevkhunta Police Station rushed to the spot, which is at Kantabania bridge, and apprehended two persons, namely, Sk. Sahabul@Sunil and Jada Soren. On search, 270 grams of brown sugar was recovered from their possession. Both of them were arrested and forwarded to the Court of Special Judge. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 11.05.2023 but on an application filed by the arrested accused for default bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C read with Section 36 -A (4) of the NDPS Act, learned Special Judge by order dated 11.05.2023, directed their release as he found that the charge sheet had not been submitted within 180 days as stipulated. Charge sheet was submitted on 11.05.2023, purportedly keeping the investigation open as per Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C.. On 27.05.2023, the petitioners in the present bail applications were arrested on the basis of evidence collected during further investigation. The bail applications having been rejected by the learned Special Judge, they have approached this Court seeking bail.

4. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Ansuman Ray, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

5. Mr. Dhal opens his arguments by submitting that the petitioners were in custody in connection with another case being Sahadevkhunta Case No. 352 of 2022 since 27.10.2022. Alleging that they had not been produced before the learned Special Judge after their arrest within the stipulated 24 hours, the petitioners moved applications for bail before the Special Judge, which being rejected, they approached this Court in CRLMC No.3703 of 2022. By Judgment passed on 17.05.2023, this Court held that the mandatory requirement of Section 57 of Cr.P.C. (read with Article 22 of the Constitution) had been violated and therefore, directed the petitioners to be released. Accordingly, the petitioners were released on 27.05.2023 but were again arrested in connection with the presen