Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-May-2025 18:08:42 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2835 OF 2025 Susila Lima @ Susil Lima …. Petitioner Mr. Pabitra Kumar Paik, Adv. -versus- …. Opposite Party Smt. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, ASC State of Odisha CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 01.
Decision
ORDER 01.05.2025 Sections Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. F.I.R. No. 62 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name 12.10.2023 Adava G.R. Case No.38 of 2023 arising out of Adava P.S. Case No.62 of 2023 of the court of Learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Gajapati. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-May-2025 18:08:42 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with G.R. Case No.38 of 2023 arising out of Adava P.S. Case No.62 of 2023 pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act., has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.04.2023 at 11 A.M. on getting reliable information, Adava Police intercepted one Bolero Pick up van vide registration No.OD-07-S-9311. On search of the said vehicle, they recorded and seized 620 kg 100 gram of contraband ganja kept in 21 number of jerry bags. The accused-Petitioner and co-accused Ranjan Parichha were found transporting the said contraband article-ganja in the aforesaid vehicle for which they were arrested and forwarded to the court on 21.04.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that out of 17 charge-sheeted witnesses only three witnesses have been examined in this case. He further submits that the Petitioner is suffering from thyroid disease and he was admitted in MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur for about 10-11 days. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2023. Therefore, considering the period of detention in Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-May-2025 18:08:42 custody and the health condition of the Petitioner, he may be released on bail with suitable terms and condition. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized is greater than commercial quantity weighing 620 kg 100 gram. He further submits that on the earlier occasion the bail petition of the Petitioner was rejected on merit. In such premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve for bail. 7. 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. Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-May-2025 18:08:42 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: “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 the 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-May-2025 18:08:42 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 inclined to undertake. 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. 14. Issue urgent certified copy of the order pas per Rules. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) B. Jhankar Page 5 of 5