The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the grant of interim bail should be an exception and must not be granted routinely or on a repeated basis [Asim Mallik vs. The State of Odisha]..A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran took exception to the Odisha High Court’s practice of repeatedly granting interim bail to the same applicant.The Supreme Court noted that while interim bail may be necessary in certain cases to address specific contingencies, it should not be granted as a matter of routine. In normal circumstances the Court should either grant regular bail or should refuse to grant bail altogether."We have noticed in several such cases, which are coming to this Court challenging the orders passed by the Odisha High Court, that recurring interim bail is granted for the same applicant over and over again. Though, it may be necessary in some cases to grant interim bail to take care of specific contingencies, but as a routine, interim bail should not be granted. Either the Court should grant regular bail or should refuse to grant bail. Granting interim bail should be an exception, and should not be granted in a routine manner and repeatedly," the Court observed..The Court was hearing a bail plea by Asim Mallik who had been booked under under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) (punishment for cultivating, possession, selling etc. a commercial quantity of cannabis) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). He was arrested in September 2021, along with co-accused Mukesh Kumar, after being intercepted by police at Chitrakonda Chowk, Odisha, with authorities claiming to have seized 1m000 kilograms of ganja from their vehicle.Mallik contended that there is no direct evidence linking him to the crime. He contended only 7 out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Further two independent witnesses denied knowledge of the drug recovery, he further pointed out. He also argued that he had no prior criminal antecedents, that he had surrendered after his earlier interim bail period expired, and has not attempted to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence while out of jail. He, therefore, urged the Court to grant him bail. .The Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the Mallik's three-year incarceration period, allowed his bail application."Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer for bail is allowed," the Court said..Advocate on Record Shrey Kapoor and Advocate Lalitendu Mohpatra appeared for Mallik, while Advocate on Record Sharmila Upadhyay and Advocate Sarvjit Pratap Singh appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]
