Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    371.criminal Appeal 1578 of 2023 - Eng

    Uploaded by

    sarayusindhu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    371.criminal Appeal 1578 of 2023 - Eng

    Uploaded by

    sarayusindhu
    6 views2 pages

    Original Title

    371.CRIMINAL APPEAL 1578 OF 2023_ENG

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    6 views2 pages

    371.criminal Appeal 1578 of 2023 - Eng

    Uploaded by

    sarayusindhu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    [2023] 6 S.C.R.

    563 563

    SEBIL ELANJIMPALLY A
    v.
    THE STATE OF ODISHA
    (Criminal Appeal No. 1578 of 2023)
    MAY 18, 2023 B
    [K. M. JOSEPH AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
    Bail – Denial of – When not proper – Appellant charged for
    commission of offences u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C), NDPS Act had been in
    custody for two years and 11 months – Bail denied – On appeal,
    C
    held: The fact that the co-accused who was released on bail did not
    surrender cannot be a germane factor to decline bail – Impugned
    order set aside – Matter to be reconsidered by the High Court –
    Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
    s.20(b)(ii)(C).
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal D
    No.1578 of 2023.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2023 of the High Court
    of Orissa at Cuttack in BLAPL No.6803 of 2022.
    Hitendra Nath Rath, Dr. J. Prasangi, R. Sreeramulu, Rajiv Kapoor,
    Vikas Sinha, Advs. for the Appellant. E

    Ms. Samapika Biswal, Adv. for the Respondent.


    The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
    JUDGEMENT
    F
    1. Leave granted.
    2. The impugned order is one by which the application for bail
    filed by the appellant has been rejected.
    3. The appellant has been charged for alleged commission of
    offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and G
    Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant has been in custody
    for two years and 11 months. The impugned order is the order passed in
    the second bail application. The earlier bail application came to be rejected
    on 07.07.2022. It is, in fact, pointed out by the learned counsel for the
    State that another attempt at securing bail from the High Court has
    failed. H
    563
    564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

    A 4. As far as the impugned order goes, we notice that the following


    is the reasoning:
    “Taking into account that the co-accused, who has since been
    released on bail has not surrendered, this Court is constrained not to
    entertain the bail application of the petitioner.”
    B 5. Thereafter the Court proceeded to note the case of the appellant
    that his father has undergone surgery and the Court proceeded to direct
    expeditious disposal of the case.
    6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also
    the learned counsel for the State as noted.
    C
    7. The impugned order shows that what has weighed with the
    Court is the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not
    surrendered. It is this factor alone which we can discern to be the reason
    to not entertain the bail application.

    D 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the


    view that the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not
    surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused,
    namely, the appellant.
    9. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matter must
    have reconsideration again at the hands of the High Court. The appeal is
    E
    allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The High Court will take up
    BLAPL No. 6803/2022 and pass orders on the same in view of the fact
    that it is a case where the charges have been framed and 19 prosecution
    witnesses are proposed to be examined by the State.
    10. We request the High Court to take up the application and
    F
    dispose of the same at the earliest and if possible, preferably within a
    period of two months from the date of production of the copy of the
    order.

    Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.


    G (Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

    You might also like