The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2940 of 2024 Dhruba Charan Behera & Anr. …. Petitioners Mr. Surya Kanta Pradhan, Adv. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Ms. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 02.05.2025 F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station 227/2024- 20.01.2025 Rairakhol 25 Excise Sections Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act. Case No. and Courts’ Name T.R.Case No.02/2025 pending in the court of learned A.D.J.cum- Special Judge, Rairakhol. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 20:23:49 Page 1 of 6 3. The petitioners being in custody in connection with T.R. Case No. 02 of 2025 arising out of Rairakhol Excise Station P.R. Case No.227 of 2024-2025, pending in the court of the learned A.D.J.-cum-Special Judge Rairakhol, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, have filed this petition for their release on bail. 4. The prosecution case in short is as follows: On 20.01.2025 the QIC of Rairakhol Excise station conducted raid on the main road connected from Boudh to Rairakhol at Laindamal chowk and after following due process of law recovered and seized three numbers of yellow colour jerry sacks, each jerry sack was containing 20 Kg of ganja in total 60 Kg of Ganja from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners were arrested and Rairakhol Excise Station P.R. No 227/2024-2025 dated 20.01.2025 was registered offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act against the accused petitioners and they were forwarded to the court. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 20:23:49 Petitioners and there is no iota of evidence against the present Petitioners. He further submits that the Petitioners Page 2 of 6 are in custody since 20.01.2025. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioners 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. 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 620 kg 100 gram 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 Petitioners’ 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 20:23:49 are frequently committed, not by lone actors but through loosely connected chains involving multiple participants, Page 3 of 6 each playing a role in transportation, logistics, concealment, or financing. 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 the High Court manifestly erred respondent-accused on bail.” in enlarging 10. 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 20:23:49 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Page 4 of 6 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. 11. The Petitioners’ 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-May-2025 20:23:49 That test is not met in the present case. Page 5 of 6 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: 12-May-2025 20:23:49 Page 6 of 6