The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2891 of 2025 Amit Thakur & Anr. …. Petitioner(s) Ms. Sanjukta Munda, Adv. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. F.I.R. No. P.R No.522/2024- 25 ORDER 02.05.2025 Dated Police Station 25.02.2025 Excise, District Mobile, Sambalpur Sections Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) the N.D.P.S Act of Case No. and Courts’ Name T.R. Case No.20 of 2025 arising out P.R. of No.522/2024-25 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Sambalpur 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Signature Not Verified counsel for the State. Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-May-2025 18:22:18 3. The Petitioners being in custody in connection with T.R. Case No.20 of 2025 arising out of P.R. No.522/2024-25 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Sambalpur registered for the alleged Page 1 of 5 commission of offences under 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S Act, has filed this application for their release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 25.02.205 at about 11.00 A.M. during course of patrolling duty near Singhapali Village main road the Excise team on suspicion detained the car in question bearing registration No.CG- 13-UA-5112. On search, the concerned Excise staff seized 60 kg. of contraband Ganja from the said car which was being driven by the present Petitioners. Accordingly, an F.I.R was lodged. Upon lodging of the F.I.R and conclusion of investigation, the Petitioners were arrested and have been languishing in custody since 25.02.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Petitioners. They have also no idea about transportation of contraband Ganja through the said car. The Petitioners have also been falsely implicated in this case. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the present Petitioners. She further submits that such type of offences is not tolerable in a law abiding society. She, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this BLAPL. 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 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-May-2025 18:22:18 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: “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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-May-2025 18:22:18 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 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 Signature Not Verified risk a premature assessment of facts, which this Court is not Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-May-2025 18:22:18 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 Page 4 of 5 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: 12-May-2025 18:22:18 Page 5 of 5