Dhabaleswar Jena @ Mantu vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J.

This is the bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Bolangir GRP P.S. Case No. 0039 of 2025 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 32 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balangir, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.21(b) of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing 592 numbers of Eskuf Cough Syrup each measuring 100ml. containing Codeine Phosphate.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Ramakanta Mishra, learned counsel appearing virtually for the petitioner submits that at the time of seizure of the Contraband article, a number of persons were present, but the petitioner was never found in conscious possession of the Contraband article and, thereby, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.

On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. PP submits that not only the petitioner is having 04 criminal antecedents, out of which 02 are of similar nature, but also the petitioner has suppressed such material facts in his bail application and thereby, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief. Mr. Pradhan accordingly, prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for possessing 592 numbers of Eskuf Cough syrup bottles each measuring 100ml. containing Codeine Phosphate, but the petitioner has in fact not disclosed his antecedents in his bail application, however, the petitioner is implicated in the following cases:-

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court considers that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and in this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-9 has observed that 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. In view of the above facts and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-‡-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the alleged involvement of the petitioner in other 04 cases including 02 cases of similar nature and taking into account the suppression of facts by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately transmitted to the Court in seisin over the matter for reference.