The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2392 of 2025 Chiranjibi Jena …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Satyaban Sahoo, Adv. State of Odisha CORAM: -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Pradipta Satapathy, ASC HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. F.I.R. No. P.R. No.183/2024- 25
Decision
ORDER 09.05.2025 Dated Police Station 00.00.2025 Ghatagaon Excise Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections Sections of 20(b)(ii)(C) the N.D.P.S Act P.R. Ghatagaon Excise No.183/2024-25 corresponding to Case Special No.01 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge Keonjhar I/C, 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Ghatagaon Excise P.R. No.183/2024-25 corresponding to Special Case No.01 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48 Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge I/C, Keonjhar registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S Act, has filed this application for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 23.01.2025 on getting credible information regarding transportation of contraband Ganjan through a vehicle bearing registration No.OD-02-Q-8574 the Excise personnel detained the said vehicle. On search, the Excise personnel seized 47 kg. of contraband Ganja from the said vehicle. Accordingly, an F.I.R was lodged. Upon lodging of the F.I.R and completion of investigation, the Petitioner was arrested and has been languishing in custody since 29.01.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Petitioner. The Petitioner was only a passenger in the said vehicle. He had no idea about transportation of contraband Ganja through the said vehicle. He is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, accordingly, prays for permitting the Petitioner to be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the present Petitioner. He further submits that such type of offences is not tolerable in a law abiding society. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this BLAPL. Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48 7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, this Court finds that this petition centers on a plea for bail in a case involving the alleged possession and transportation of a commercial quantity of Ganja. Under the NDPS Act, offences of this nature invoke a stricter threshold for bail under Section 37. The Court is required to form a reasoned belief not only that the accused may be innocent but also that the likelihood of reoffending while on bail is minimal. 8. In evaluating bail for offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, the Court must look beyond isolated facts and assess the wider operational context. Such crimes often involve coordinated efforts among multiple individuals and cannot be understood in isolation. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the interconnected roles and circumstances surrounding the offence is essential. 9. It is well settled that bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act, particularly for commercial quantities, is governed by a more stringent test. In the case of Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu1 the Supreme Court reiterated the stance that no person accused of trading commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless Court is satisfied of reasonable grounds proving innocence. The relevant excerpts are produced below: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Page 3 of 5 “16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 17. The quantity of “ganja” recovered is admittedly of commercial quantity. The High Court has not recorded any finding that the respondent-accused is not prima facie guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit the same offence when enlarged on bail rather his antecedents are indicative that he is a regular offender. In the absence of recording of such satisfaction by the court, we are of the opinion that the the High Court manifestly erred respondent-accused on bail.” in enlarging 10. At the bail stage, the Court is not expected to determine the guilt of the accused. However, it must assess whether the material on record provides reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty. This includes a holistic consideration of all statements, documents, and evidence gathered during the investigation. Even if such material does not conclusively prove innocence, it cannot be dismissed outright, as doing so would undermine the legal standard set by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 11. The Petitioner’s involvement, whether direct or peripheral, warrants full scrutiny at trial. Granting bail at this stage would risk a premature assessment of facts, which this Court is not Signature Not Verified inclined to undertake. Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48 Page 4 of 5 12. The Court is conscious that the Petitioner has spent considerable time in custody. But in cases under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, bail cannot be granted only on the basis of time spent. The law requires reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit a similar offence. That test is not met in the present case. 13. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Ayaskanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 12:26:48 Page 5 of 5