Supreme Court of India
SEBIL ELANJIMPALLY versus THE STATE OF ODISHA on 18 May 2023
2023 INSC 557[2023] 6 S.C.R. 563
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 563
SEBIL ELANJIMPALLY
v.
THE STATE OF ODISHA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1578 of 2023)
MAY 18, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
Bail – Denial of – When not proper – Appellant charged forcommission of offences u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C), NDPS Act had been incustody for two years and 11 months – Bail denied – On appeal,held: The fact that the co-accused who was released on bail did notsurrender cannot be a germane factor to decline bail – Impugnedorder 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 AppealNo.1578 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2023 of the High Courtof 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.
Ms. Samapika Biswal, Adv. for the Respondent.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
JUDGEMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The impugned order is one by which the application for bailfiled by the appellant has been rejected.
3. The appellant has been charged for alleged commission ofoffences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant has been in custodyfor two years and 11 months. The impugned order is the order passed inthe second bail application. The earlier bail application came to be rejectedon 07.07.2022. It is, in fact, pointed out by the learned counsel for theState that another attempt at securing bail from the High Court hasfailed.
Page 1 of 2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A4. As far as the impugned order goes, we notice that the followingis the reasoning:
“Taking into account that the co-accused, who has since beenreleased on bail has not surrendered, this Court is constrained not toentertain the bail application of the petitioner.”
B
5. Thereafter the Court proceeded to note the case of the appellantthat his father has undergone surgery and the Court proceeded to directexpeditious disposal of the case.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and alsothe learned counsel for the State as noted.
C
7. The impugned order shows that what has weighed with theCourt is the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has notsurrendered. It is this factor alone which we can discern to be the reasonto not entertain the bail application.
D8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of theview that the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has notsurrendered 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 musthave reconsideration again at the hands of the High Court. The appeal isEallowed. The impugned order is set aside. The High Court will take upBLAPL No. 6803/2022 and pass orders on the same in view of the factthat it is a case where the charges have been framed and 19 prosecutionwitnesses are proposed to be examined by the State.
10. We request the High Court to take up the application andFdispose of the same at the earliest and if possible, preferably within aperiod of two months from the date of production of the copy of theorder.
G
Divya Pandey
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)
Appeal allowed.
H
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…