The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2959 of 2025 Pramod Kumar Tandi @ Tuna …. Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Ms. Siva Mohanty,ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 16.05.2025 Dated F.I.R. No. Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 120 20.08.2023 Mohana P.S. Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS, Act G.R. Case No.82 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge- cum-Spl. Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The petitioner being in custody in connection with G.R. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 Case No.82 of 2023 arising out of Mohana P.S. Case No.120 of 2023, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati, Page 1 of 5 registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS, Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case in short is as follows: On 20.08.2023 at 5.00 A.M., aTata-709 truck bearing Registration No.OD-07-F-2979 seeing the Policeman stopped 50 metres from the police party. The driver and one occupant got down from the truck and ran away. On search 135 jari bags containing 4335 Kgs. 500 grams of contraband ganja were recovered from the truck. As the occupants of the truck ran away from the spot, the police was unable to nab them immediately. The case was registered against the driver of the truck and an unknown person. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2023. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed. 6. 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 Page 2 of 5 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 4335 Kgs. 500 grams 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. 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 participants, each playing a role in transportation, logistics, concealment, or financing. 9. It is well settled that bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 Act, particularly for commercial quantities, is governed by a more stringent test. In the case of Union of India v. Ajay Page 3 of 5 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. Here, the record shows that during investigation, the Petitioner’s name surfaced in the context of broader 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Page 4 of 5 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 Page 5 of 5