Sebil Elanjimpally vs The State Of Odisha

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1578 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3518 of 2023)

SEBIL ELANJIMPALLY Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ODISHA Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Leave granted.

The impugned order is one by which the application for

bail filed by the appellant has been rejected.

The appellant has been charged for alleged commission

of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs

and 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.

Signature Not Verified As far as the impugned order goes, we notice that the Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2023.05.20 13:08:19 IST Reason: following is the reasoning:

“Taking into account that the co-accused, who has

1 CRL. APPEAL NO. 1578/2023(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3518/ 2023)

since been released on bail has not surrendered, this Court is constrained not to entertain the bail application of the petitioner.”

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.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and also the learned counsel for the State as noted.

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.

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.

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 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.

We request the High Court to take up the application

2 CRL. APPEAL NO. 1578/2023(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3518/ 2023)

and 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.

…………………………………………………………., J.

[ K.M. JOSEPH ]

…………………………………………………………., J.

[ ARAVIND KUMAR ]

New Delhi;

May 18, 2023.

3