AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
These are bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Tarva PS Case No. 178 of 2025 corresponding to Spl. GR Case No. 42 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 9quintals 35Kgs and 140Grams of Contraband Ganja in 31 sacks containing 930 wrapped packets in a bolero pick-up vehicle with fake registration no. “OD-03-AB-9281”.
Heard Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the bail applications and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP in these two matters and perused the record. Mr. Mohanty submits that the petitioners were neither apprehended from the spot nor were they found in conscious possession of contraband article and thereby, the petitioners may kindly be granted bail.
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners and others for entering into a conspiracy to use the vehicle for transportation of huge quantity of contraband ganja and accordingly, 9quintals 35Kgs and 140Grams of Contraband Ganja, which is definitely coming under commercial quantity was seized, while being transported in a Bolero Pick-up van with fake registration number and the co-accused persons were arrested at the time of raid, but the petitioners were not found apprehended from the spot, however, in the course of investigation, finding the complicity of the petitioners in these cases, they were taken into custody. Grant or refusal of bail to an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is dependent on the satisfaction by the accused the twin conditions; such as:-
he is not guilty of the offence and (ii) he is unlikely to commit offence while on bail, which is the mandate of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, but the petitioner herein namely Chandan Kara is found to have following three criminal antecedents:-
Tarva PS Case No.163 of 2025 for offences U/S.20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act;
Gochhapada PS Case No.41 of 2019 for offences U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act &
Kantamal PS Case No.51 of 2023 for offences U/S.294/323/506/34 of IPC.
Similarly, the petitioner Sudhir Guru is having following five criminal antecedents: -
Boudh, Kantamal PS Case No.118 of 2007 for offences U/S.294/337 of IPC;
Kantamal PS Case No.221/23 for offences U/S.294/427/506/34 of IPC;
Bargarh PS Case No.572/23 for offences U/S.20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act;
Sonepur PS Case No.129/24 for offences U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and
Tarva PS Case No.163/25 for offences U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w Sec.29 of the NDPS Act except this one.
Admittedly, neither of the petitioners have disclosed their antecedents in their bail applications, but from the alleged implication of the petitioners in the above noted cases, they appears to be implicated in two & three cases of similar nature for commission of offence U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act which is definitely an impediment for the petitioners to satisfy the conditions that they are unlikely to commit offence while on bail. In the context of not disclosing the material facts, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to the decision by the Apex Court in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein, the Apex Court at Paragraph 9 has held as under: -
“9.xx xx xx, since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. xx xx”.
One of the contentions as raised for the petitioners is that their implication is on the basis of statement of co-accused, but such assertion appears to be unmerited inasmuch as the implication of the petitioners is also based on the statement of Rabindra Sahu, Santosh Kumar Sahu, Sampad Sahu, Rabindra Putel, out of these four, last two witnesses statements’ have been recorded by learned Magistrate U/S.183 of BNSS. It is therefore, clear that not only the petitioners were implicated on the basis of their statement, but also on the basis of the statement of other witnesses. Even accepting for a moment of the implication of the petitioner on the basis of their statement, this Court considers it proper to refer the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vrs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC Online SC 346, wherein at paragraph no. 9 & 11 the Apex Court has held as under: -
“9.The driver of the vehicle Om Prakash Yadav revealed that he was driving the truck with the co-accused Amit Yadav as helper of one Bittu Dada of Jamshedpur and at the behest of Shri Ram Pravesh Yadav, resident of Ballia, he had gone to Jamshedpur where the acquaintance of respondent-accused gave him the truck which was loaded with ganja for safe delivery in lieu of Rs.50,000/-. He further informed that the respondent-accused indulges in illicit trade of ganja.
11.The information revealed by the above two accused persons indicated that both of them knew the respondent-accused and that they had connived with him to transport the illicit ganja and that they were in direct contact with the respondent-accused all through on his mobile number. The facts as unfurled from the complaint/FIR and the statements of the above two accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act reveals that respondent-accused is the kingpin and the organizer of the illicit trade in ganja.”
From a conspectus of materials placed on record, it is found that petitioners have been implicated in this case on the basis of materials and their implication has been reiterated in the charge-sheet. In the aforesaid premises and taking into consideration the materials placed on record together with non-disclosure by the petitioner of their criminal antecedents for criminal cases including two cases of similar nature and thereby, they having not been able to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant of bail for commission of offence under NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant any of the petitioner to bail.
Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Chandan Kara (BLAPL No.5820 of 2026) and Sudhir Guru (BLAPL No.6016 of 2026) stand rejected.
Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court.