Ranjit Mahato And Bishnu Mahato @ Bishnu Kumar Mahato @ Chotka vs State Of Orissa

BLAPL NOs.6009 & 6049 of 2026 CNR Nos. ODHC010435092026 & ODHC010437692026 (In the matter of applications under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). Ranjit Mahato (In BLAPL No.6009 of 2026) Bishnu Mahato @ Bishnu Kumar Mahato @ Chotka (In BLAPL No.6049 of 2026) … Petitioners

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:12.08.2026(ORAL)

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 Rourkela GRPS Case No.139 of 2025 corresponding to Spl. GR Case No.52 of 2025 pending in the file of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Panposh, Rourkela for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS ACt, on the main allegation of possessing net weight of 117 Kgs and 400 Grams of Contraband Ganja in a Trolley Bag.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6009 of 2026 submits that although the Petitioner-Ranjit Mahato is stated to have been in unauthorized possession of commercial quantity of Contraband article, but the statement of the informant itself reveals that from the gesture and posture of the Petitioner, he could know about the unauthorized possession of Contraband article by the Petitioner and thereby, the very foundation of the case being shaky, the provision of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted against the Petitioner. Further, Mr. Pattanaik submits that the Petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent and thereby, the Petitioner having already been custody, he may kindly be granted bail.

Mr. Sandeep Raj Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6049 of 2026 submits that neither any Contraband article was recovered from the possession of the Petitioner nor was he apprehended from the spot, rather his implication is on the basis of statement of co-accused and, thereby, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.

On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by placing the materials on record submits that not only the Petitioners have failed to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, but also they being found to have been dealing with commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja, their bail applications may kindly be rejected.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for possessing and dealing with 117 Kgs and 400 Grams of Contraband Ganja, which is definitely coming under commercial quantity. Sec. 37 of NDPS Act prescribes that no person accused of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where 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. It is no doubt contended on behalf of the Petitioner Bishnu Mahato @ Bishnu Kumar Mahato @ Chotka that his implication is on the basis of statement of co-accused, but in this regard, this Court considers it relevant to refer to the decision in Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph-9 and 11 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.

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 organiser of the illicit trade in ganja.”

On a conspectus of materials placed on record, it appears that both the Petitioners have not only been named in the FIR, but their implication in this case is forthcoming and thereby, 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 for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity.

In the result, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Ranjit Mahato (In BLAPL No.6009 of 2026) and Bishnu Mahato @ Bishnu Kumar Mahato @ Chotka (In BLAPL No.6049 of 2026) stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court for reference. (G. Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Judge