The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3490 of 2025 Akhil Clement Suresh …. Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Ray (2), Adv. State of Orissa -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Smt. Ava Mohanty, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Dated
Decision
ORDER 08.05.2025 Case No. and Courts’ Name Order No. F.I.R. Police No. Station 0031 11.03.2025 Gudari Gudari P.S. Case 2025 No.31 corresponding to T.R. Case No.28 of 2025 pending in the learned Court of Sessions Addl. Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur of Sections Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S Act 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Gudari P.S. Case No.31 of 2025 corresponding to T.R. Case No.28 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 14:29:33 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S Act, has filed this application for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 11.03.2025 on getting credible information regarding transportation/selling of contraband Ganjan through a motorcycle, the Police personnel detained the said motorcycle near Badabhuin Chowk. On search, the Police personnel seized 38 kg. 115 grams of contraband Ganja from the said motorcycle. 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 11.03.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Petitioner. The Petitioner was only a bystander. He is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He, accordingly, prays for permitting the Petitioner to be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the present Petitioner. She further submits that such type of offences is not tolerable in a law abiding society. She, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this BLAPL. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 14:29:33 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 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: 28-May-2025 14:29:33 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 risk a premature assessment of facts, which this Court is not inclined to undertake. 12. The Court is conscious that the Petitioner has spent considerable time in custody. But in cases under the NDPS Act Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 14:29:33 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: 28-May-2025 14:29:33 Page 5 of 5