The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3320 of 2025 Sekh Basir ..…... Petitioner Mr. Manoranjan Padhy, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 06.05.2025 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections FIR/ PR No. 219 21.08.2020 Jeypore Town Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/ 29 of NDPS Act out T.R. Case No.52(B) of 2020 of arising Jeypore Town P.S. No.219 of 2020 in pending the learned court of Judge- Sessions cum-Special Judge, Korapur, 2 At- Jeypore 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with T.R. Case No.52(B) of 2020 arising out of Jeypore Town P.S. No.219 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Korapur, At- Jeypore, has filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that on the Police received an information regarding transportation of contraband ‘Ganja’ in a TATA ACE Vehicle bearing registration No.OD-10-H-2557 on NH 326 from Boipariguda to jeypore Town. Thereafter, they proceeded to the aforesaid place and after a while at about 10:00 A.M, they found the said vehicle was coming from Boipariguda side being escorted by one person. Police detained the vehicle and found two occupants were there, on being searched, recovered 42 number of gunny bags containing 1046 Kgs. of contraband ‘Ganja’. Page 2 of 7 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband ganja. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by the prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in custody since 21.08.2020. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker sections of society and often lack access to competent legal 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. Page 3 of 7 4 assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata. It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts irreparable harm—especially if the accused is ultimately acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are prioritized and concluded expeditiously. 8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 4 of 7 5 is greater than commercial quantity weighing 1046 kgs. In such premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve for bail. 9. 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 1046 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. 10. 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 @ Pappu3 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 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Page 5 of 7 6 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. 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.” 11. 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 Petitioner does 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 Petitioner. Page 6 of 7 7 12. This Court, therefore, declines to entertain the prayer of the present Petitioner. 13. 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: 19-May-2025 15:34:40 Page 7 of 7