The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Pradip Das BLAPL No. 4742 of 2025 …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Jugal Kishore Panda, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Ms. Siva Mohanty, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No.
Decision
ORDER 14.05.2024 FIR/ PR No. 93 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 04.05.2022 Sonepur Special G.R. Case No.23 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Sonepur I/C. Judge, Sections- 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29 /25 of the NDPS Act 01. 1. 2. 3. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. The petitioner being in custody in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No.93 of 2022 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.23 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned District & Page 1 of 6 Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur I/C, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections- Sections- 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29 /25 of the NDPS Act , has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case in nutshell is that on 04.05.2022 at about 6.50 PM the complainant, SI of Police Sonepur P.S and his staff were performing patrolling duty near Patabhadi area, Sonepur. It is stated that they got reliable information that two persons were coming from Kantamal side to Sonepur side by an Indica Car with contraband ganja for illegal selling. They immediately proceeded to ring road chhak with staff and remained there. At about 2.50 PM, they found two persons were coming from Manamunda side by and Indica Car bearing No. OR-31-2311 in a high speed. On suspicion, they detained the vehicle and after verification of the said car, it was found nothing but contraband ganja of 72 Kgs. 490 grams, but they could not produce any document or license. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner is a local inhabitant having his movable and immovable property within the jurisdiction in the District of Kandhamal, there is least chance of fleeing from justice and avoiding the trial. The Petitioner is languishing in custody since 18.04.2022. Hence, he Page 2 of 6 submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the present Petitioner in view of the seizure of huge quantity of contraband Ganja which is above the commercial quantity from the exclusive possession of the Petitioner and another. 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 198.3 kilograms 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 Page 3 of 6 involving multiple participants, 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. is 17. The quantity of “ganja” recovered 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.” 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Page 4 of 6 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 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. Page 5 of 6 14. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed. 15. Issue urgent certified copy of the order pas per Rules. Sumitra Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-May-2025 13:19:52 Page 6 of 6