The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2548 of 2025 Pramod Sharma ..…... Petitioner Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Acharya, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 29.04.2025 Order No. 01. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections F.I.R /PR No. 209 12.02.2025 Malkangiri Excise Station Sections 20(b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S Act 2(a) CC Case No.05 o f 2025 pending in the Court of learned Session Judge- cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 13:14:24 1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Malkangiri Excise Station PR No.209 of 2024-25 2 corresponding to 2(a) CC Case No. 05 of 2025, pending in the court of the learned Session Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 12.02.2025 at about 06:00 AM, the informant along with his staff was patrolling and checking vehicles on the main road from Malkangiri to Sukma. During the course of patrolling, they seized 44.000 Kgs. of contraband ganja from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused persons while they were illegally transporting the same in a white colour Maruti Swift car bearing Regd. No. RJ02CH-8215. The informant recovered two gunny bags containing 44 Kgs. of contraband ganja from the said vehicle. After observing all the formalities the said contraband was seized and given zima to the concerned court. Hence, this case. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 13:14:24 Petitioner had no knowledge regarding transportation of contraband ‘ganja’. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The Petitioner is in custody since 12.02.2025. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be released on bail. 3 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that the quantity of ganja seized is clearly above the commercial quantity prescribed under the Act which bars granting of bail. 6. At the heart of this petition lies a request for bail in a case involving alleged possession and transportation of commercial quantity of Ganja, precisely 198.3 kilograms as per the seizure report. The law under the NDPS Act draws
Legal Reasoning
a firm line when it comes to such quantities. The threshold for judicial discretion in granting bail under Section 37 is significantly higher than in ordinary offences. The court is bound to be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, not only that the accused is not guilty of the offence but also that he is not likely to commit a similar offence while on bail. 7. The main thrust of the petitioner’s argument is that he was not present at the spot, no contraband was recovered from him directly, and his implication rests solely on the confessional statement of a co-accused. While these are certainly relevant considerations, they cannot be viewed in isolation, especially in the context of how narcotics offences are frequently committed, not by lone actors but through loosely connected chains involving multiple Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 13:14:24 4 participants, each playing a role in transportation, logistics, concealment, or financing. 8. 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: “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 High Court manifestly erred in enlarging the respondent-accused on bail.” 9. Here, the record shows that during investigation, the petitioner’s name surfaced in the context of broader Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 13:14:24 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 5 operational details provided by the apprehended co- accused. While such statements may not be substantive evidence at trial unless duly corroborated, at this stage they are not to be dismissed out of hand. 10. The petitioner’s alleged role, even if indirect, cannot be brushed aside without trial scrutiny. Releasing an accused connected to such an offence on bail would amount to pre- judging the issue, something this court is not prepared to do. 11. It is true that other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. However, parity is not a passport to liberty in all cases. The principle must bend where the roles are unequal or the surrounding facts distinguish the petitioner's case. Courts must be vigilant that granting bail in cases involving organized drug trafficking does not inadvertently embolden the network. 12. The Court is conscious that the petitioner has spent considerable time in custody and the investigation is over. 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 13:14:24 6 13. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed. 14. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. Judge Murmu ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 13:14:24