The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2760 of 2025 Aniket Singh & Anr. …. State of Odisha -versus- …. Petitioner (s) Represented By Adv. Ms. Sanjukta Munda Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satapathy, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No.
Decision
ORDER 01.05.2025 F.I.R ./P.R . No. 477 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Section 25.01.2025 District Mobile, Sambalpur Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act T.R. Case No.07 of 2025 arising out of Mobile District P.R. Sambalpur of Case No.477 in 2025 pending the of learned Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sambalpur Sessions Court 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioners are being in custody in connection with T.R. Case No.07 of 2025 arising out of District Mobile Sambalpur P.R. Case No.477 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sambalpur, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 25.01.2025 at about 7 A.M., while the Inspector-in-charge, District-Mobile, Sambalpur (informant) was conducting patrol duty in Bhalubahal area under the jurisdiction of Sason P.S. along with his staff, he received the information from reliable source regarding illegal transportation of ganja in one grey colour innova vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-02-AW- 0007 from Sambalpur side. At about 7.30 A.M., the aforesaid vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-02-AW-0007 arrived near Bhalubahal Chhak and the raiding party detained the aforesaid vehicle. The informant noticed that two persons were present inside the vehicle including the driver and three numbers of white colour jari bastas were kept on the back seat of the said vehicle. On being asked, the driver disclosed his identity as Aniket Singh and the other occupant Page 2 of 5 // 3 // of the vehicle disclosed his identity as Rahul Patel. But, they did not disclose the contents of the jari basta. On suspicion, the back door of the vehicle was opened and acute smell of ganja came out of the vehicle. After observing all necessary formalities of search and seizure (as per the NDPS Act), the informant searched the vehicle and recovered three numbers of white colour jari bastas from the back seat of the vehicle and one white colour jari basta from the dickey of the said vehicle. The informant conducted different tests and confirmed that the materials packed in the jari basta were nothing but ganja. Thereafter, he weighed the ganja of all four jari bastas and the total weight of the recovered ganja was found to be 75 Kgs. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners had no knowledge regarding transportation of contraband ‘ganja’. The Petitioners are in custody since 25.01.2025. Hence, he submits that the Petitioners may be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioners contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized is greater than commercial quantity weighing 75 kilograms. In such premises, he submits that the Petitioners do not deserve for bail. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 7. 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 75 kgs as per the seizure report. The law under the NDPS Act draws 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. 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: involving trade “16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence 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. 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 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. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court finds that the ganja seized from the possession of the present Petitioners do not come within the purview of commercial quantity. At this juncture, looking to the provision under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court finds that there is a bar for release of the present Petitioners. 10. This Court, therefore, declines to entertain the prayer of the present Petitioners. 11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being dismissed. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Sumitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-May-2025 19:02:19 Page 5 of 5