The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.848 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Rashmi Ranjan Bhol @ Silu … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
submits that although this Court intends for early disposal of the case, but the trial in this case is yet to be concluded and, therefore, the Petitioner may kindly be granted bail, but trial has already been commenced with examination of four witnesses in the meanwhile. Notably, there is allegation against the Petitioner for possessing 1238 grams of Brown Sugar which is coming under commercial quantity and thereby, the petitioner is required to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. In the aforesaid circumstance of allegations against the Petitioner and ongoing though the evidence of the witnesses vis-à-vis the materials placed on record, this Court does not find any reasonable ground for believing that the accused-Petitioner is not guilty of such offence and he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail, BLAPL No.848 of 2025 Page 2 of 5 which is mandate of Section 37 of NDPS Act. In this context, this Court considers it useful to refer to the decision in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs. Kashif;(2024) SCC Online SC 3848, wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph No.8 has been pleased to hold as under: COMPLIANCE OF THE MANDATE UNDER SECTION 37: “8. There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that in the NDPS cases, is punishable with where the offence minimum sentence of ten years, the accused shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. While considering the application for bail, the court has to bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act. Apart from the granting opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, the other two conditions i.e., (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are the cumulative and not alternative conditions. 4. In the context to submissions of the Petitioner with regard to the delay in disposal of the case, this Court considers it proper to refer to a recent decision of the BLAPL No.848 of 2025 Page 3 of 5 Apex Court in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs. Mohit Agarwal; (2022) 18 SCC 374, wherein the Apex Court by considering its earlier judgment on the compliance of Section 37 of NDPS Act has held as under:- "The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act." Further, in Kashif(supra) the Apex Court has summarized its conclusion in Paragraph No. 39 and some of such conclusions which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this bail application are extracted as under:- “39.(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. (ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused BLAPL No.848 of 2025 Page 4 of 5 involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. xx xx xxx xxx xxx (vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.” 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above and applying the principle as culled out by the Apex Court in these decisions to the facts of this case and the Petitioner having not satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. 6.
Arguments
: Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:24.04.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is the 5th bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with STF(CID-CB) PS Case No.12 of 2022 corresponding to TR Case No.206 of 2022 pending in the file of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of receiving a consignment of Brown Sugar weighing 1238 Grams from the co-accused Kapildev Majumdar. BLAPL No.848 of 2025 Page 1 of 5 2. Heard Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 3. No doubt Mr. Pradhan, however, by taking this Court through its earlier order passed on 10.07.2024
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 25-Apr-2025 15:31:56 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th day of April, 2025/Priyajit BLAPL No.848 of 2025 Page 5 of 5