Pradip Das @ Pradeep vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

This is a successive bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with T.R. Case No. 32 of 2020 arising out of Umerkote P.S. Case No. 212 of 2020 pending in the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Umerkote, Nabarangpur for commission of offences punishable Under Sections 20(b)(ii) (C) & 29 of NDPS Act, on the allegation of consciously possessing 105 Kgs and 676 grams of Contraband Ganja.

In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of confession of co-accused which is inadmissible in the eye of law and similarly situated co-accused persons have already been released on bail. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that despite being detained in custody for near about two years, the trial is yet to commence and, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in its order passed in Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No. 6690 of 2022 (Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vrs. State of Uttrapradesh). Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies upon the decision in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vrs. State (NCT of Delhi); 2023 (I) OLR SC 959 to grant bail to the Petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Roul, learned ASC, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the Petitioner by placing the statement of the witness Pratap Mallick that the present Petitioner has not only been implicated on the basis of confession of co-accused, but also from the statement of the other witnesses and commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja having recovered from the exclusive possession of the Petitioner, Section 37 of NDPS Act would operate as a bar for release of the petitioner on bail. Learned ASC, accordingly, prays to reject the bail application of the Petitioner.

After having considered the rival submissions made upon perusal on record, there appears allegation against the Petitioner for possessing 105 Kgs and 676 grams of Contraband Ganja and such quantity of Contraband Ganja is definitely coming under commercial quantity and, therefore, the limitation as provided in Sec. 37 of NDPS Act prima facie attracts in this case, but the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court the mandatory conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. It is also found from the record that the Petitioner has not implicated only on the basis of confession of co-accused, but there is other materials for implicating the Petitioner in this case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, of course, has relied upon the decision in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain (Supra) to grant bail to the Petitioner, but the Petitioner therein having detained in custody for more than seven years cannot be equated with the Petitioner in the present case who is in custody for near about two years only, especially when there is restriction for grant of bail to the petitioner as provided in Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. Besides, the decision relied upon by the Petitioner in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla (Supra), the Apex Court has taken into consideration the custody of the Petitioner therein for more than two and half years and, accordingly, considered that the condition of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act can be dispensed with, but in this case 105 Kgs and 676 grams of Contraband Ganja was allegedly seized from possession of the Petitioner. Moreover, in Narcotics Control Bureau Vrs. Mohit Aggarwal; 2022 SCC Online SC 891, a three judge Bench of the Apex Court while cancelling the bail granted to the accused person therein has been pleased to observe that the length of the period of his custody or the fact that the 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 (accused) under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In addition, it is undisputed that the Petitioner was earlier granted interim bail by an order passed by this Court on 05.07.2022 in I.A. No. 1079 of 2022 for a period of two months, but NBW was issued against him on 09.09.2022 for misusing the liberty granted to him. In the above circumstance, the Petitioner’s conduct is also not praiseworthy.

In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the Petitioner and keeping in view the alleged seizure of Contraband Ganja to the tune of 105 Kgs and 676 grams from the possession of the Petitioner and his consequent failure to satisfy the mandate of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the Petitioner.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Trial be expedited.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

……………………………