Rabindra Nayak vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

This is 2nd successive bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Maitrivihar P.S. Case No.132 of 2025 corresponding to T.R. Case No.179 of 2025 pending in the file of learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the allegation of possessing 24Kgs of Contraband Ganja.

Heard, Mr. Santosh Chandra Atabudhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

Admittedly, the Contraband Ganja allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner is coming under commercial quantity, but it is reflected in the impugned order of rejection of bail to the petitioner that the petitioner is involved in two criminal cases of similar nature. Earlier when the aforesaid fact was pointed out to the learned counsel for the same petitioner in BLAPL No. 7878 of 2025, he withdrew that bail application. Grant or refusal of bail to an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is governed by Sec.37 of NDPS Act which prescribes that no person accused of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where the 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, but the involvement of the petitioner in other two cases of similar nature speaks his conduct and makes him not been able to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act. True it is that, co-accused persons have been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but the same having been passed without any reference to Sec.37 of NDPS Act, no parity can be extended to the petitioner. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision of 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 the 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 has 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 commission of offences under NDPS Act 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.”

It is, therefore, very clear from the precedent as laid down by Apex Court in Satpal Singh (supra) that an order granting bail to an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity must demonstrates the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, but if the order granting bail to co-accused does not discuss/demonstrate about the satisfaction of the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, it would not have any binding precedent for grant of bail to co-accused. In such view of the matter and after having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials placed on record, since the petitioner is allegedly found to be involved in two cases of similar nature, which was never disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India Vrs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.