AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sonepur PS Case No.129 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.26 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 745Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a Ashok Leyland container bearing Regd. No.CG-04-JC-9085.
Heard Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.
Mr. Mishra in fact submits that co-accused-cum-owner driver of the vehicle has already been granted bail, but the present petitioner is the helper of the vehicle and he is in custody since long, however, no witness has been examined for the last one year and only two witnesses have been completely examined with partial examination of third witness till today and thereby, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be considered positively. On the other hand, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP submits that since the Contraband Article seized in this case is 745Kgs of Contraband Ganja which is much more than the commercial quantity and thereby, the petitioner has to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, but the petitioner has failed to satisfy such conditions and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.
After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for transporting 745Kgs of Contraband Ganja, but one of the grounds under which the petitioner has sought for bail is his long custody, however, the law has been well clarified in State of Punjab vrs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora; 2026 Live Law(SC) 421, wherein the Apex Court has held thus:-
“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.”
Besides, the length of time spent in custody by an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity may not be a persuasive ground for grant of bail as held by the Apex Court in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs. Mohit Agarwal; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891, wherein a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court 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 view of the aforesaid law settled by Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, long custody of the accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity may not always be a ground to grant bail, unless the petitioner satisfies the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act.
No doubt the petitioner has taken the plea of parity for grant of bail to him, but this Court in fact has considered such plea in the earlier bail application of the petitioner in BLAPL No.6795 of 2025 by observing inter alia that, if an order granting bail to an accused for offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is without any discussion of the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, it may not constitute a precedent for grant of bail to co-accused on parity as held by the 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 provisions 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.”
Additionally, the materials on record discloses allegation against the petitioner for transporting 745Kgs of Contraband Ganja and the petitioner was allegedly found apprehended from the spot, but on a careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record, this Court does not find the petitioner 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 offence under NDPS Act. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the materials placed on record coupled with the facts failure of the petitioner to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment may immediately be transmitted to the Court concerned.