The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5432 of 2025 Ratikanta Patra ..…... Petitioner Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Parties Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 30.05.2025 P.R. No. 51 of 2025 -26 1. 2. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 18.05.2025 Nilagiri Excise U/s. 21(b) of ND.P.S. Act. Special Case No. 139 of 2025 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balasore This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Nilagiri Excise P.R. No. 51 of 2025-26 corresponding to Special Case No. 139 of 2025 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Page 1 of 6 Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balasore for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 21(b) of N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition seeking release on bail. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 18.05.2025 at about 11 A.M. while the informant along with his other Excise staff were performing patrolling duty at Chhotakanapur Village, at that point of time, they could notice that one person was standing near the Chhotakanapur bridge holding a small plastic box (Daba) in a suspicious manner. Seeing the raiding party members, the said accused was trying to flee from the spot, but with too much difficulties the informant and his staffs could able to detain him. On being asked, he disclosed his name and identity and further on being searched, the informant found a jerry bag which containing 80 gms. of brown sugar. Thereafter, the informant and his staffs seized the contraband article in presence of independent witnesses and, accordingly, apprehended the accused persons. Hence this case. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Petitioner and he is in Page 2 of 6 custody since 18.05.2025. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the present Petitioner in view of the seizure of commercial quantity of contraband brown sugar from the exclusive possession of the Petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for 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 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 Page 3 of 6 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. 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 Page 4 of 6 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.” 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 Page 5 of 6 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. 15. Issue urgent certified copy of the order pas per Rules. Vacation Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Deepak/Puspanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 31-May-2025 13:34:58 Page 6 of 6