The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.10025 & 11215 of 2024 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS). Sk. Mantaz @ Sk. Mamtaz (In BLAPL No. 10025 of 2024) Sk. Saruk (In BLAPL No. 11215 of 2024) -versus- … Petitioners State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioners : Mr. S.C. Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate (For BLAPL No. 10025 of 2024) Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate (For BLAPL No. 11215 of 2024) For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:02.07.2025 (ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with STF PS Case No.14 of 2020 corresponding to TR Case No.133 of 2020 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act pending in the file of 3rd learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, on the BLAPL Nos.10025 & 11215 of 2024 Page 1 of 8 allegation of possessing 405 Grams of Brown Sugar along with co-accused persons. 2.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 10025 of 2024 vehemently submits without disputing the criminal cases registered against the Petitioner that the manner in which the personal liberty of the Petitioner has been curtailed, is a matter of great concern, since the Petitioner has been implicated in this case subsequently after two years of the occurrence and mere registration of criminal cases itself could not disentitle the Petitioner to secure his personal liberty, since there is no prima facie materials against the Petitioner. Further, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Sr. Counsel submits that since the Petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of confession of co-accused from whom the Contraband Article was recovered, he is entitled to bail on that score. Accordingly, Mr. Mohapatra prays to grant bail to the Petitioner. BLAPL Nos.10025 & 11215 of 2024 Page 2 of 8 2.1. On the other hand, Mr. Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 11215 of 2024 prays for grant of bail to the accused-Petitioner on the ground of delay in disposal of the case. 2.2. On the contrary, Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that since the Petitioners have not satisfied the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, they are not entitled to bail. Mr. Acharay, accordingly, prays to reject the bail applications of the Petitioners. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it is found that a comprehensive affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Sk. Mantaz @ Sk. Mamtaz, wherein following criminal cases of similar nature has been stated to be registered against the Petitioner:- (a) Jaleswar P.S.Case No.53(A) of 2010, U/s.21(b) of NDPS Act, corresponding to Spl.G.R.Case No.53 (A) of 2020, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore. (b) Jaleswar P.S.Case No.276 of 2021, U/S.21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act to Spl.G.R.Case No.210 of 2021 pending in the court corresponding BLAPL Nos.10025 & 11215 of 2024 Page 3 of 8 learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, of Balasore. (c) Jaleswar P.S.Case No.279 of 2021, U/s.21(c) of NDPS Act, corresponding to Spl.G.R. Case No.218 of 2021, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore. (d) Jaleswar P.S. Case No.300 of 2021, U/s.21(b) and 29 of NDPS Act, corresponding to Spl.G.R. Case No. 240 of 2021, pending before the court of learned Judge, Balasore. Judge-Cum-Special Sessions (e) Jaleswar P.S. Case No.307 of 2021, U/s.21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act, corresponding to Special G.R.Case No. 245 of 2021, pending in the court of learned Judge, Balasore. Judge-Cum-Special District (f) Talasar P.S.Case No.01 of 2011, U/s.21(b) of NDPS Act, corresponding to Spl.G.R. Case No. 07 of 2021, pending in the court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Balasore. Further, there is allegation against the Petitioner-Sk. Saruk for possessing commercial quantity of the Contraband articles. The quantity of Contraband articles seized in this case which is 405 Grams of Brown Sugar, is definitely coming under commercial quantity and thereby, the Petitioners in order to secure their liberty have to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act which prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under BLAPL Nos.10025 & 11215 of 2024 Page 4 of 8 section 19 or section 24 or section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and(ii)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. True it is that, the learned Sr. Counsel has emphatically submits that mere registration of the cases against the Petitioner would not debar him to secure his liberty, but fact remains that the Court has to be satisfied on the ground that has been prescribed in Sec. 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The first condition therein has been satisfied in this case since the Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application of the Petitioner, but out of six cases registered against the Petitioner for offences under NDPS Act, three are of commercial commercial quantity and this Court does not consider it proper in the aforesaid circumstance to record BLAPL Nos.10025 & 11215 of 2024 Page 5 of 8 satisfaction that the Petitioner would not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Further, the trial is going on and the accused Sk. Saruk is allegedly found to have been in unauthorized possession of the commercial quantity of Contraband articles, which is 405 Grams of Brown Sugar. Mere delay in disposal of the case is not a persuasive ground for grant of bail to accused as held by the Apex Court in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs. Mohit Agarwal; (2022) 18 SCC 374, wherein a three judge Bench of the Apex Court has held as under:- "The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act." Besides, in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs. Kashif; 2024 SCC Online SC 3848, the Apex Court has also made it clear that for release of Petitioner accused of offences under NDPS Act involving in commercial quantity, recording of satisfaction of conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act is sine-qua-non. Further, the Apex Court in this decision has held as under:- BLAPL Nos.10025 & 11215 of 2024 Page 6 of 8 “8. There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that in the NDPS cases, where the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, the accused shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. While considering the application for bail, the court has to bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act. Apart from the granting opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, the other two conditions i.e., (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are the cumulative and not alternative conditions.” 4. In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioners vis-a-vis the accusations sought to be brought against them and on going through the materials placed on record and taking into the long criminal history of the Petitioner-Sk. Mantaz @ Sk. Mamtaz and prima facie materials being found against the Petitioners together with their failure to satisfy the BLAPL Nos.10025 & 11215 of 2024 Page 7 of 8 conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the Petitioners. Hence, the bail applications of the Petitioners stand rejected. The Petitioners are, however, at liberty to renew their prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the learned trial Court. 5. Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court for taking sincere steps for early conclusion of the trial. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 2nd day of July, 2025/Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 07-Jul-2025 10:33:34 BLAPL Nos.10025 & 11215 of 2024 Page 8 of 8