AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is the bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Motu P.S. FIR No. 136 of 2022 corresponding to Special G.R. No. 179 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing 42Kgs 70Grams of Contraband Ganja.
Heard, Mr. Shyam Manohar, learned counsel appearing virtually for the petitioner and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.
Bail to the petitioner is sought for mainly on the ground of long detention of the petitioner in custody for 03 years & 09 months and grant of bail to co-accused persons, but fact remains that the present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years in Bankhedi P.S. Case Diary Crime No. 277 of 2019 in the State of Madhya Pradesh for unauthorized possession of 9Kgs 175Grams of Contraband Ganja along with two co-accused person according to the submission advanced for the petitioner and the affidavit filed on his behalf. Besides, the petitioner in his bail application has disclosed his implication in 23 nos. of criminal cases. 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.
A careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record would go to reveal that the petitioner is allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity of Contraband article and thereby, he has to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, but the conviction of the petitioner for similar type of offence is definitely an impediment to consider that the petitioner has satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, more particularly when he is having allegedly implicated in 23 nos. of cases. In this regard this Court is fortified with the decision in State of Punjab vrs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora; 2026 Live Law(SC) 421, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-10 has 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 view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account the materials placed on record together with the conviction of the petitioner for similar type of offence and his alleged implication in huge number of cases and he having not been 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, 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. Looking at the custody period of the petitioner, the learned trial Court is requested to proceed with the case and dispose of the same, since it is informed that 10 out of 17 witnesses have already been examined. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately transmitted to the Court in seisin over the matter for reference.