Pradip Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

This is the 2^nd bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sheragada P.S. Case No. 152 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.08 of 2022(N) Special Act, pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Aska, Ganjam, for commission of offences punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the allegation consciously possessing 1043Kgs of Contraband Ganja.

¶15

In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. Amit Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner was found sitting on the verandah of the house stated to be belonging to his father-Mangulu Pradhan, but the

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

said house does not belong to his father, rather belongs to one Biswanath Padhy and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for any Contraband Ganja recovered from the house of said Biswanath Padhy. It is further submitted by Mr. Biswal that the Contraband Ganja recovered from the house of coaccused Muna Bisoyi cannot be added to the Contraband Ganja recovered from the house of said Biswanath Padhy only to increase the gravity of the offence for recovery of huge quantity of Contraband Ganja. Mr. Biswal further submits that since the petitioner is in custody for more than two years and trial having not concluded in the meanwhile, he can deem to have been considered to have satisfied the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. Mr. Biswal under aforesaid submission prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶18

On the contrary, Mr. B.P. Nayak, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the quantity of Contraband Ganja recovered and seized from the possession of the petitioner being more than one ton, he cannot be said to have satisfied the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act which operate as a bar for release of the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, Mr. Nayak prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

Admittedly, it is the subsequent bail application of the petitioner, but the materials on record prima facie shows the conscious possession of the petitioner for more than commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja and he, thereby, is required to satisfy the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act for his release on bail. It is, however, true that the petitioner has been detained in custody for some time, but the learned trial Court in its report has sought for at least six months time for disposal of the case. It is also found from the record that the petitioner was found sitting on the verandah of one of the houses from which 405 Kgs 700 Grams Contraband Ganja was allegedly recovered, out of the total of 1043 Kgs of Contraband Ganja seized in this case. Moreover, in Jayshree Kanabar vs. State of Maharastra & Others; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 10 it is reiterated by the Apex Court that when there is an embargo put in by a specific provision under a special enactment in the matter of grant of bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, the power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in such specific provision. In this case, on a conspectus of materials placed on record, this Court is unable to record satisfaction that the petitioner has satisfied

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act for grant of bail.

¶23

In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submission and taking into account the nature and gravity of the accusations raised against the petitioner, so also the quantity of Contraband Ganja allegedly seized in this case being to the tune of 1043 Kgs and the apprehension of the petitioner allegedly from the verandah of the house in which 405Kgs 700Grams of Contraband Ganja was allegedly stored, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, especially when the trial is going on.

¶24

Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands rejected.

¶25