AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with STF PS Case No.18 of 2024 corresponding to CT (Spl.) NDPS Case No.06 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Talcher for commission of offences punishable under Sections 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of jointly possessing 1kg 120grams of Brown Sugar, along with co-accused person.
In the course of hearing, Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there appears allegation against the petitioner for jointly possessing commercial quantity of contraband article, but nothing was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner, however, the petitioner has already been detained in custody for more than two years and four months and, therefore, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.
On the other hand, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter alia that not only the petitioner was found in possession of such a huge quantity of contraband article, along with co-accused person, but also he is having one criminal antecedent of similar nature in Samal PS Case No.214 of 2023 for commission of offence U/S.21(c)/29 of NDPS Act and thereby, the petitioner having not satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, Mr. Satpathy, prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.
After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for jointly possessing 1kg 120grams of brown sugar, which is much more than the commercial quantity, along with co-accused persons. Besides, the petitioner is allegedly implicated in another case in Samal PS Case No.214 of 2023 for commission of similar offence. Sec.37 of NDPS Act prescribes that no person accused of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail; where the public prosecutor opposes such bail application, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and he is unlikely to commit offence while on bail. On a careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record together with the criminal antecedent of the petitioner for similar nature, this Court does not find the petitioner to have satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act.
No doubt the learned counsel for the petitioner has harped the custody period of the petitioner as a ground to grant him bail, but in State of Punjab vrs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora; 2026 Live Law(SC) 421, the Apex Court has been pleased to held as under:-
“10.Xx xx xxx The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedly a valuable constitutional guarantee; but in the context of a special statute such as the NDPS Act dealing with commercial quantity, that right has to be read alongside, and not in displacement of the mandate of Sec.37 of NDPS Act.”
In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into consideration the materials placed on record together with failure of the petitioner to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment may immediately be transmitted to the Court concerned.