Shyama Khila vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

These are applications U/S.483 BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Malkangiri PS Case No.377 of 2024 arising out of Special G.R. Case No.105 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, for commission of offences punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 600Kgs of Contraband Ganja in the tractor of the petitioner- Raghu Muduli.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Soumya Kanta Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 9774 of 2025 by taking this Court through the decision of this Court in Biju @ Bijay Kumar Mandal Vrs. State of Odisha; (2025) 1 OLR 118 submits that since the petitioner Shyama Khila is implicated in this case on the basis of statement of co-accused, the provision of Sec.37 of NDPS Act is not attracted to the case at hand, but he, however, does not dispute about the implication of the petitioner- Shyama Khila in Orkel P.S. Case No.144 of 2021 for similar offence. Accordingly, Mr. Tripathy prays to grant bail to the petitioner-Shyama Khila.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Kumar Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 12501 of 2025 submits that since the petitioner Raghu Muduli was not found in conscious possession of Contraband article, the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act is not attractable for him, but the petitioner having been granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of independent seizure witness, however, the trial having not yet commenced, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, Mr. Panda prays to grant bail to the petitioner Raghu Muduli.

3.2. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP, however, by relying upon the provision of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, prays to reject the bail applications of the petitioners.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for transporting Contraband Ganja to the tune of 600Kgs which is well above the commercial quantity allegedly in the tractor of the petitioner Raghu Muduli, but the learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the provision of Sec.37 of NDPS Act is not attracted to the case at hand, however, grant or refusal of bail in a case 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. It is of course not denied by the petitioner Shyama Khila that Orkel P.S. Case No. 144 of 2021 has been registered against him for commission of similar offence, but one of the conditions for grant of bail as per Sec.37 of NDPS Act is unlikelihood of petitioner committing similar type of offence, however, the alleged involvement of the petitioner- Shyama Khila in Orkel P.S. Case No. 144 of 2021 for similar offence stands out on his way to comply the provision of Sec.37 of NDPS Act. No doubt, the petitioners claim that the provision of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable to the present case at hand, but this Court is fortified with the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, wherein the Apex Court after taking note of the fact of involvement of the accused therein in another case and arranging vehicle for transportation has considered it imperative for the accused therein to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act for their release on bail and ultimately, set aside the order granting bail to the accused therein for not satisfying the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act.

In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners and keeping in view the materials placed on record, this Court hardly finds the petitioners to have satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act.

Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Shyama Khila in BLAPL No. 9774 of 2025 and Raghu Muduli in BLAPL No. 12501 of 2025 stand rejected. Accordingly, these bail applications stand disposed of.