The Supreme Court division bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran, expressed concern over the Odisha High Court's practice of granting interim bail on a repetitive basis. The bench noted that while interim bail might be necessary in certain situations, it should not be granted routinely or repeatedly.

The Court specifically took issue with the practice of granting interim bail to the same applicant multiple times, stressing that such bail should be considered an exception rather than a standard procedure. The bench emphasized that in most cases, courts should either grant regular bail or refuse to grant bail altogether, rather than resorting to interim bail repeatedly.

"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 case stemmed from a bail application filed by the applicant, who had been arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The applicant, who faced charges related to the cultivation, possession, and trafficking of a commercial quantity of cannabis, was apprehended in September 2021 along with a co-accused. The authorities claimed to have seized 1,000 kilograms of ganja from their vehicle at Chitrakonda Chowk in Odisha.

The applicant contested the charges, arguing that there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. He pointed out that, of the 16 prosecution witnesses, only seven had been examined so far. Moreover, two independent witnesses had denied knowledge of the drug recovery, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.

In his defense, the applicant further argued that he had no prior criminal record, that he had surrendered after his earlier interim bail expired, and that he had not attempted to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence during his time out of jail. He requested the Court to grant him regular bail based on these factors.

Taking into account the circumstances of the case, including the applicant ’s three-year period of incarceration, the Supreme Court allowed his bail plea. The Court ordered, "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."

Case Title: Asim Mallik Versus The State Of Odisha, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 57403/2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Shrey Kapoor AoR and Advocate Lalitendu Mohpatra

Advocate for the Respondent: Sharmila Upadhyay AoR and Sarvjit Pratap Singh