ABHAYA PARICHHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Abhaya Parichha has filed this application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail as his prayer for bail was turned down by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Paralakhemundi in G.R. Case No. 27 of 2014 (A) vide order dated 08.04.2015.

(2.) ON 19.07.2014 one Prabhansu Sekher Mishra, Sub -Inspector of Police, Adava Police Station lodged the First Information Report before the Inspector -in -Charge, Adava Police Station, District -Gajapati stating therein that on 19.04.2014 as per the direction of the Inspector -in -Charge, Adava Police Station, the informant along with other police staffs proceeded towards village Chudangapur to verify the authenticity of the information regarding transportation of contraband ganja. At about 8.30 a.m. the raiding party members noticed one Mahindra Max Pick Up Van bearing Registration No. OR -07 -N -0849 was coming from village Chudangapur and moving towards Antarba side. Out of suspicion, they stopped the vehicle and found two persons inside the vehicle and there were four jerry bags from which acute smell of contraband ganja was coming out. The driver of the Van disclosed his name as Ramesh Raita and the other person disclosed his name as Pradeep Bira. On being interrogated by the police officials, accused Pradeep Bira disclosed that as per the direction of the petitioner, he procured ganja from the locality and packed the same in four jerry bags and transporting it to Chandiput to the house of the petitioner for commercial purpose. As the persons present in the Van failed to produce any authority regarding transportation of contraband ganja, observing all the formalities, the contraband ganja from inside the jerry bags were weighed by weighman in presence of two independent witnesses and S.D.P.O., R. Udayagiri and it was found in total to be 102 kg. 600 grams. Samples of ganja were drawn from each of the packets and the rest ganja were packed and sealed by the informant by using personal brass seal and keeping paper slips with signatures of witnesses and accused persons. As commercial quantity of ganja was found from the exclusive and conscious possession of co -accused Pradeep Bira and Ramesh Raika, FIR was registered against three persons namely Pradeep Bira and Ramesh Raika, who were found in the vehicle so also against the petitioner under sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter for short "N.D.P.S. Act").

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mohit Agarwal strenuously contended that there is no other material against the petitioner except the confessional statement of one of the co -accused before police which has no got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. He further contended that even though during course of investigation, on a number of occasions raids were conducted in the house of the petitioner but nothing incriminating was found from his house. The learned counsel further urged that the statement of co -accused Pradeep Bira that ganja was procured from the locality as per the direction of the petitioner and that they were transporting the same to the house of the petitioner for commercial purpose is not supported either by oral evidence or by documentary evidence. Not a single person has stated that the petitioner was dealing with contraband ganja and therefore it would not be proper to detain the petitioner further in judicial custody on the basis of inadmissible evidence in absence of any link of the petitioner with the ganja seized. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 07.04.2015 and on the basis of available materials on record, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted and there are no criminal antecedents against him and as such it cannot be assumed that the petitioner is likely to commit any offence while on bail. He further urged that as there is no chance of absconding of the petitioner or tampering with the evidence, taking into account the period the detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the bail application may be favourably considered.