Rupesh Singh Bhesra vs State Of Orissa

G. Satapathy, J

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Tarva PS Case No.178 of 2025 corresponding to Spl. GR Case No.42 of 2025 pending in the file of learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 9 Quintals 35 Kgs 140 Grams of Contraband Ganja in his vehicle by entering into conspiracy with co-accused persons.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Sudhanshu Sekhar Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that neither the Petitioner was apprehended from the spot nor was he the owner of the vehicle, rather the implication of the Petitioner in this case is on the basis of statement of principal accused Sudhir Guru and thereby, the Petitioner having satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, he may kindly be granted bail.

2.1. It is, however, placed on record by way of judgment by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner being implicated in similar case for transportation of Contraband article, has already been acquitted in CT No. 32 of 2019 of the Court of learned Special Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani.

2.2. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by relying upon 183 statement of BNSS of one Rabindra Putel submits that the vehicle in question has been purchased by the Petitioner and was used in transportation of Contraband article like Ganja and thereby, the Petitioner being found prima facie involved in a case of NDPS Act for transportation of commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja, he is required to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act for his release on bail, but he having not satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, the bail application of the Petitioner may kindly be rejected.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the Petitioner for entering into conspiracy with co-accused to use his vehicle for transportation of such a huge quantity of Contraband Ganja to the tune of 9 Quintals 35 Kgs 140 Grams, which is definitely coming under commercial quantity, but grant or refusal of bail 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 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. In this case, no doubt the Petitioner has taken the plea that he was not picked up by the Police personnel from the spot, but the materials placed on record including the statement of that Rabindra Putel makes the allegation against the Petitioner about his involvement in commission of offence under NDPS Act for commercial quantity and he is thereby, required to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. In this context, this Court feels it proper to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vrs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, wherein the Apex Court while setting aside the order granting bail to the accused therein has inter-alia observed the following facts in paragraphs-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.”

In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the materials placed on record, the Petitioner having not found to have satisfied 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.