STATE Vs. SURENDRANATH MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party on the ground that bail was granted on mistaken statement made by the counsel for the State. This case is a classic example as to how unsavory circumstances are created on account of submissions made by the State's counsel without proper application of mind and/or without proper instructions.

(2.) THE opposite party (described hereafter as 'the accused') was arrested on 7 -4 -1990 for alleged commission of offences punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act'). The allegations are of very serious nature and it transpires from the record that the Petitioner, his son -Prasanna Kumar Mohanty, and one Tara Prasad Mohanty, were found to be in possession brown sugar and charas. The accused moved for bail before the Sessions Judge, Puri, which was rejected. He moved an application for bail in this Court which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 527 of 1990. The case was listed on 13 -6 -1990, when it was adjourned to 20 -6 -1990. On that date, the learned Counsel for the State made a statement purported to be on the basis of instructions received that though the accused had been arrested there was no case instituted against him. In view of this peculiar statement, the accused was granted bail. Subsequently on 25 -6 -1990, an application was filed to modify the order dated 20 -6 -1990 on the ground that the statement made be the counsel for the State was erroneous, as in tact the accused had been arrested in connection with 2(a) CC Case No. 192 of 1990 and abundant materials on record clearly establish the complicity of the accused in the offences as alleged. On that date, as an interim measure, it was directed that the matter was to be placed on 29 -6 -1990 and the accused was not to be released until further orders. Subsequently, another application was filed for cancellation of bail granted on the ground that before the order dated 25 -6 -1990 could be communicated, the accused had been enlarged on bail pursuant to the order dated 20 -6 -1990. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the State that as a matter of abundant caution, and to meet the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the accused about the maintainability of an application for cancellation of bail in a disposed of case, the case under consideration has been filed.

(3.) THE application for cancellation of bail is resisted primarily on the ground that cancellation of bail once granted amounts to a review and unless there are supervening circumstances the Court should be slow to direct cancellation.