KUSHA DURUKA v. THE STATE OF ODISHA. Citation: 2024 (SC) 47
In this case, two persons were accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The sessions court rejected their bail applications. Imperatively, their bail applications were listed in the High Court before different judges. For convivence, let's say Judge A and Judge B (as also illustrated in the judgment). While the co-accused's bail application was allowed by Judge B, the appellant's bail application was rejected by Judge A. Against this backdrop, the present SLP was filed by the appellant. Meanwhile, a second bail application was filed before the High Court without disclosing the facts about the instant SLP. Now, during the pendency of the matter before this Court, Judge B (who granted bail to the co-accused) granted bail to the appellant..
In this case suggestions are to streamline the proceedings and avoid anomalies.
• Firstly, there should be details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which has already been decided.
• Secondly, details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made.
• Thirdly, the registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there.
• Lastly, it should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any,
