SANATAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) titioner assails the order dated 16-1-1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore, cancelling the bail granted by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was released on bail by extending the privilege provided under proviso (a) to sub-sec. (2) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). The petitioner was arrested for being in illegal possession of 9 Kgs. 600 gms. of Ganja. The petitioner was arrested and was remanded to custody on refusal of bail by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, on 18-8-1990. Petitioner's bail application before the learned Sessions Judge was once turned down on 20-10-1990. Since no final form was received from the investigating agency, application for bail was moved on 22-10-1990 before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, who taking note of proviso (a) to sub-sec. (2) of S. 167 released the petitioner on bail. Subsequently on completion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted. An application for cancellation of bail was filed by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that there was material to show that the petitioner had committed serious offence for which punishment up to five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine extending Rupees 50,000/- can be imposed and therefore, the bail granted was to be cancelled. He was of the view that provisions of S. 167(2) have no application to offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act'). The accused has made this application for interference with the order cancelling bail granted.

(3.) It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in holding that the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 167 was not applicable to offences under the Act and therefore, his order cancelling bail granted is illegal; though the petitioner was released on bail long time back there is no allegation of his having misused the liberty; and therefore cancellation of bail is not proper.