Judgment:
A. Pasayat, J.
1. The short but important point that needs consideration is whether a person accused of having made infraction of the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the 'Act'), who has been released on bail during stage of investigation is required to be remanded to jail custody on cognizance of the offence being taken by Seamed Sessions Judge, because the requirements under Section 37(b)(ii) of the Act were not kept in view while bail was granted.
2. Facts situation lies within a narrow compass. Petitioner was released on bail as per order of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (in short, the 'SDJM') on 27-11-1990. A direction was given by learned SDJM for appearance of accused before learned Sessions Judge, Purl on 23-4-1993. On that day petitioner was absent and a petition was filed praying for time and it. was allowed till 1-6-1993. On 1-6-1993 adjournment was again sought for, and granted. Date of appearance was fixed to 17-6-1993, on which date petitioner appeared and prayed for continuance) of bail granted at the stage of investigation. Learned Sessions Judge, Pun rejected the prayer for continuance of bail and directed the petitioner-accused to be remanded to custody being of the view that restriction imposed Under Section 37(b) of the Act was not considered while granting bail.
3. Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that considerations while granting bail and cancelling bail are entirely different. Even in a case where bail has been erroneously granted, the same cannot be cancelled though it is shown that grant was improper. Learned counsel for State on the other hand, submitted that where grant itself is contrary to Saw, there is no bar in cancelling bail, and learned Sessions Judge was justified in directing cancellation of bail.
4. Similar question came up for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in Hadiani Dei v. State of Orissa and Ors.. *(1993) 6 OCR 588. It was observed that improper grant recedes to background when question of cancellation of bail is subject-matter of consideration. In that case, order of learned Sessions Judge directing cancellation under similar circumstances was vacated and it was directed that petitioner would continue on previous bail unless the same is cancelled on any of the grounds indicated in the case. There is no distinguishing feature so far as this case is concerned. Order of learned Sessions Judge so far it relates to cancellation of bail is concerned, is vacated. Petitioner would continue on his previous bail unless the same is cancelled on any of the grounds indicated in Hadiani Dei's case (supra). It is stated that the case is now pending before Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.
The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of.