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 the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Special Crime Unit PS Case No.03 of 2024 corresponding to TR Case No.68 of 2024 pending in the file of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of jointly possessing and transporting 300Kgs of Contraband Ganja in two cars bearing Registration No WB-02-Y-2897(Ford Endeavour) & OR-02-AP-5353(Chevrolet Aveo), along with co-accused persons.
Heard, Mr.Subhrajeet Sahoo, learned counsel appearing virtually for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 5789 of 2026; Mr.Deepak Ranjan Parida, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 8966 of 2024 and Mr.C.Mohanty, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.
In the course of hearing, Mr. Deepak Ranjan Parida, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Ravi Shankar Das submits that co-accused Rahul Sethi and Law Kishore Prasad Sahadev have already been granted bail, but the petitioner has been detained in custody since long without conclusion of trial and, therefore, the petitioner may kindly be admitted to bail. Similar is the submission advanced by Mr.Subhrajeet Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Rajesh Das.
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners and others for transporting 300Kgs. of Contraband Ganja in two cars, but the co-accused Law Kishore Prasad Sahadev released on bail was allegedly found transporting 40Kgs. of Contraband Ganja, whereas the implication of co-accused Rahul Sethi granted bail in BLAPL No. 4553 of 2024 is on the basis of statement of co-accused, but the present petitioners were allegedly apprehended with 260Kgs of Contraband Ganja while transporting the same in Chevrolet Aveo car. Be that as it may, law is equally well settled that if an order granting bail does not discuss the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, such order would not constitute a precedent for grant of bail to co-accused on parity as held by Apex Court in Satpal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab; (2018) 13 SCC 813, wherein the pre-arrest bail application of one accused namely Satpal Singh was turned down by one of the Bench of High Court, whereas the pre-arrest bail application of co-accused Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh had been allowed by another Bench of the said High Court, but after noticing the provision of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, the Apex Court while upholding the view of the learned Judge declining to give protection to accused Satpal Singh for not recording satisfaction of the conditions U/S.37 of NDPS Act cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court to co-accused Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh for not recording satisfaction of the conditions U/S.37 of the NDPS Act which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused for offences involving commercial quantity. The relevant observation of Apex Court in Satpal Singh (supra), in Paragraph-14 is extracted as under:-
“14.xx xx. The quantity is reportedly commercial. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the High Court could not have and should not have passed the order U/S.438 or 439 of CrPC without reference to Sec.37 of NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise inclined to grant bail. Such a satisfaction having not been entered, the order dated 21.09.2007 (granting pre-arrest bail to accused person) is only to be set aside and we do so.”
One of the grounds that has been taken by the petitioners is their long custody for grant of bail, but in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs. Mohit Agarwal; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891; a three judges Bench of the Apex Court while setting aside the order granting bail to an accused has held thus:-
“18.xx xx. The length of the period of his(accused) custody or the fact that 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 U/S.37 of NDPS Act”.
In a very recent decision 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.”
Sec. 37 of NDPS Act prescribes that no person accused of an offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where the public prosecutor opposes such bail application of the accused; unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. On a scrutiny of the materials placed on record and taking into consideration the seizure and recovery of 260Kgs of Contraband Ganja, which is much above the commercial quantity from the vehicle allegedly in occupation of the petitioners, this Court does not find the petitioners to have satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act which is sine qua non for grant of bail to an accused for commission of an offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity.
In view of the above facts and on going through the materials placed on record coupled with failure of the petitioners to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners.
Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Rajesh Das (In BLAPL No.5789 of 2026) and Ravi Shankar Das @ Ravi Shankar Das (In BLAPL No.8966 of 2024) stand rejected. Accordingly, both the BLAPLs stand disposed of. It is, however, open to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of nine months hence or any other justifiable grounds. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court for reference.