Buna Kanhar vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

This is an application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Phulbani Sadar PS Case No. 163 of 2025 corresponding to C.T.(N) Case No.95 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Phulbani, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting net weight of 175Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a Scorpio vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-07Z-0999.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Raj Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in two cases for similar nature, but he was neither apprehended from the spot nor was any Contraband article recovered from him, rather the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by showing him to be involved in other case and, therefore, the petitioner may kindly be considered to have well satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act and he having been detained in false case, may kindly be granted bail.

On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP by highlighting the allegation submits that not only the petitioner is involved in this case, but also he is involved in another case and the petitioner, therefore, having been implicated in two cases for transportation of commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja, his bail application may kindly be rejected.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner and two co-accused persons for transporting net weight of 175Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a Scorpio vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-07Z-0999. Further, there is alleged involvement of the petitioner in another case in Phulbani Sadar P.S. Case No. 07 of 2025 for commission of offence U/S.20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. Grant or refusal of bail to an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is to be governed by Sec.37 of NDPS Act which provides recording satisfaction of the Court the conditions for grant of bail which are (i) the accused is not guilty of the offence and (ii) he is unlikely to commit offence while on bail, but the present petitioner's alleged involvement in another case for self same offence itself is indicative of his inability to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act.

Additionally, this Court considers it proper to refer to the decision in Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, wherein the Apex Court set aside the order granting bail to the respondent-accused therein after taking note of the following facts at paragraph-9 & 11 which reads 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 careful perusal of the materials placed on record together with allegation leveled against the petitioner and taking into account the FIR and charge sheet being indicative of the implication of the petitioner for commission of offence U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and the petitioner having been shown to be an absconder in the charge sheet, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, especially when the witnesses are yet to be examined.

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