The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 3601 of 2025 Arun Kumar Sahoo Petitioner Mr. Sushanta Harichandan, Adv. …. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satapathy, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 09.05.2025 F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station 196/2024- 25 11.03.2025 Sadar Excise Station, Phulbani Sections Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act. Case No. and Courts’ Name 2(a)CC Case No.06/2025 in pending the court of learned Special Judge, Phulbani 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The petitioner being in custody in connection with 2(a)CC Case No.06/2025 arising out of Sadar Excise Station, Phulbani P.R. No.25/2024-25, pending in the court of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 13:47:21 Page 1 of 6 learned Special Judge, Phulbani, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case in short is that on 11.03.2025 at 9.30 A.M. the Excise Officers of Sadar Excise Station, Phulbani while patrolling near Gadiapada Ghat under Khajuripada P.S., intercepted a metal black colour Maruti Suzuki Alto Car bearing Regd. No.OD-05S-4173 occupied by two persons including the petitioner Ananta Kumar Kanhar. But, the driver of the car managed to escape from the spot. On being asked accused-petitioner Ananta disclosed that their car was piloting a white colour Alto Car bearing Regd. No.OD-02CQ-8225 carrying contraband ganja therein for transportation. As it further reveals, sometime thereafter i.e. at 9.40 AM they found a vehicle of the above description approaching towards the spot and the same was intercepted by the Excise Officers and they found the same was occupied by accused-petitioner Arun Kumar Sahu only. On search of the said vehicle they recovered two jerry sacks from the dickey and one jerry sack from the backseat of the said car and smell of ganja was emitting out of those sacks. Thereafter, on weighment, the weight of contraband kept in two jerry sacks recovered from the dickey came to 20 Kgs each and the weight of contraband ganja kept in the jerry Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 13:47:21 Page 2 of 6 sack placed on the backseat came to 20 Kgs 200 Grams, in total they recovered 60 Kgs 200 grams of contraband ganja. The accused-petitioners were detained, arrested and forwarded to the court. Hence, the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Petitioner and there is no iota of evidence against the present Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2025. 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. 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 161 kg. 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 13:47:21 Page 3 of 6 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.
Legal Reasoning
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:
Decision
“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. 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 13:47:21 Page 4 of 6 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 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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 13:47:21 Page 5 of 6 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: 27-May-2025 13:47:21 Page 6 of 6