Sudesh Mistry vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

Since these three bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common order 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.248 of 2025 corresponding to Spl GR Case No.74 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act.

The allegation as emerged out from the FIR discloses that while the informant police officer and his staff were conducting MV checking duty on 19.05.2024, they noticed two vehicles, one white color Bolero Neo bearing Regd. No.OD-30-D-8658 and one light blue color Tata Pickup Van bearing Regd. No.TS-12-UE-3701 loaded with plastic bags at Goudaguda chowk, Malkangiri and on suspicion, they directed the drivers of the aforesaid two vehicles to stop, however, seeing the police checking, the drivers of both the vehicles stopped and driver of bolero Neo and occupant of Tata Pickup Van managed to escape from the spot, but the police party apprehended the driver of Tata Pickup namely Sujan Bepari and occupant of bolero vehicle namely Sudesh Mistry and on search, the police party recovered 46bags each containing 20Kgs of contraband ganja from the pickup van and four bags each containing 20Kgs contraband ganja from the bolero Neo vehicle and accordingly, the police party recovered 1000Kgs of Contraband Ganja from both the vehicles. Further, the police party on interrogation came to know that Paresh Biswas, Sakhanath Ray had managed to abscond from the spot.

On the FIR by the informant police official, Malkangiri PS Case No.248 of 2025 was registered for commission of offence punishable U/S.20(b)(ii)(C)/ 25/29 of NDPS Act which culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners and co-accused persons for the self-same offences, resulting in present bail applications before this Court after the rejection of bail application to the petitioners by the learned Special Judge, Malkangiri.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Pranab Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.10485 of 2025 submits that the petitioner was not having any knowledge of transportation of contraband ganja in the vehicle since he was a mere occupant of the vehicle and he having not being found in conscious possession of Contraband Article, it can be well considered that the petitioner has satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act and, therefore, the petitioner having already been detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly be granted bail.

4.1 On the other hand, Mr. Abhas Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.98 of 2026 & 356 of 2026 submits that neither the petitioners were apprehended from the spot nor were they in found conscious possession of contraband article and they having been subsequently falsely arrested in this case may kindly be allowed to go on bail as the provision of Sec.37 of NDPS Act is not attracted against them.

4.2 On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP by inviting attention to the criminal antecedents of the petitioners Sakhanath Ray and Paresh Biswas for similar offences prays to reject their bail applications. Mr. M.R. Patra also submits that the petitioner Sudesh Mistry being found in conscious possession of the contraband article of huge quantity and he having not satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, his bail application may kindly be rejected.

After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for transporting huge quantity of Contraband Ganja to the tune of 1000Kg in two vehicles, but the quantity of Contraband Ganja seized in this case is much more than the commercial quantity. Law is fairly well settled that grant or refusal of bail for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is governed by Sec.37 of NDPS Act, which provides 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 to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and he is unlikely to commit offence while on bail and in this case, the petitioner Sudesh Mistry is allegedly apprehended from the spot along with the contraband article, but the petitioners Sakhanath Ray and Paresh Biswas have been subsequently arrested, however, the allegation against them is for procuring and supplying the Contraband Ganja in this case.

One of the important consideration in granting bail as per Sec.37 of NDPS Act to an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is his unlikelihood of committing offence while on bail, but the petitioner Paresh Biswas is allegedly involved in following five cases:-

(i) Cr. No.78/2025 of Gangavaram PS, Andhra Pradesh U/S.8(C) r/w Sec.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act;

(ii) Cr. No.246 of 2023 of Umadi PS, Jath District, Maharashtra-Seizure of 80Kgs of Ganja;

(iii) Kalimela PS Case No.64 of 2022 U/S.420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC;

(iv) Motu PS Case No. U/S.294/420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC

(v) Orkel PS Case No.410 of 2024 U/S.125(a)/281 of BNS.

Similarly, the prosecution has reported against the petitioner Sakhanath Ray the following three criminal cases:-

(i) Cr. No.78 of 2025 of Gangavaram PS, Andhra Pradesh U/S.8(C) r/w Sec.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act

(ii) Cr. No.52 of 2017 of NCB, KZU, West Bengal

(iii) Malkangiri PS FIR No.55 dated 06.03.2013, U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

The aforesaid two petitioners have never disclosed their aforesaid criminal antecedents in their bail applications which is not only material omission, but also suppression of important fact, which cannot be taken lightly.

A studied scrutiny of the materials placed on record, together with the criminal antecedents of the petitioners as referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners Sakhanath Ray and Paresh Biswas have not been able to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act. Similarly, the petitioner Sudesh Mistry being allegedly found in possession of such a huge quantity of Contraband Ganja is also not considered to have satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion of facts and taking into account the other circumstances on record vis-à-vis the materials placed on record and the petitioners having not been able to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act which is sine qua non for grant of bail to an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

Hence, these three bail applications of the petitioners namely Sudesh Mistry in BLAPL No.10485 of 2024, Sakhanath Ray in BLAPL No.98 of 2026 and Paresh Biswas in BLAPL No.356 of 2026 stand rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of.