Dismissed¶¶26

Bikash Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Apr 2025BLAPL/2255/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; BLAPL No.2255 of 2025; order dated 22.04.2025; S.K. Panigrahi, J. Bail refused to Bikash Das & Anr. under Section 37 NDPS Act for alleged transport of 420 kgs 540 grams of ganja (offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)); Baipariguda P.S. Case No.35 of 2024 / T.R Case No.13/2024, Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Koraput-Jeypore; custody since 07.02.2024; charge sheet filed, trial commenced, 7 of 24 witnesses examined; BLAPL dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence for which the Petitioners are said to have been involved and the bar contained under section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioners on bail. ¶¶25

Bikash Das Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

In THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2255 of 2025

¶2

Bikash Das & Anr.

¶3

…. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Surya Kanta Pradhan, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. State of Odisha Opposite Party Mr. T. K. Acharya, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶9

Order ORDER No. 22.04.2025

¶10

P.R. No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
35	07.02.2024	Baipariguda	T.R Case No.-13/2024, pending in the court learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Koraput- Jeypore	Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶11

¶12

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶14

3 . The Petitioners being in custody in connection with Baipariguda Case No.35 of 2024, corresponding to T.R Case No.13/2024, pending in the court learned Additional District

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Koraput-Jeypore, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act, have filed this petition for their release on bail.

¶17

4 . The prosecution case in short is as follows:

¶18

On 07-02-2024 at about 3.30 A.M the Police team noticed a Bolero pick up goods carrier coming from Malkangiri side on N.H. 326 on high speed. The Police team signaled the vehicle to the stop but, instead it sped away, After a chase the Police team managed to detain the vehicle. These two accused persons were going in the vehicle. Accused Bishal Singh was driving the vehicle. It was noticed that the accused persons were carrying cuboid shape packets wrapped with polythene and tightened with cello taps in the vehicle and acute smell of ganja was coming from the packets. On interrogation, the accused persons admitted that they were transporting ganja in the vehicle. On search of the vehicle, it was found that the accused persons were carrying 50 such packets and each packet contained ganja. The ganja kept in the packets were divided into 17 parts kept in 17 polythene sacks. On weighment the net quantity of the ganja came to 420 kgs 540 grams of contraband Ganja from the vehicle, seized the same, arrested the accused

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

persons namely (1) Bishal Singh (Driverof Bolero), (2)Bikash Das and forwarded them to Court under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

¶21

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners being there in the vehicle from which contraband Ganja has been recovered have been arrested in the case for being involved in possession of transportation of 420 Kgs of Ganja. He further submits that these Petitioners, having been arrested in the case are in custody since 07.02.2024 and in the meantime charge sheet has already been submitted. He further submits that in the meantime, the trial has commenced and out of 24 chargesheeted witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined.

¶22

In view of all these above, according to him the bar contained under section-37 of the NDPS Act at this stage does not stand on the way of grant of bail to the Petitioners. He therefore, urges for consideration of the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioners.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that the quantity of ganja seized is clearly above the commercial quantity prescribed under the Act which bars granting of bail.

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

7 . Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials as placed, further keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence for which the Petitioners are said to have been involved and on the face of the bar contained under section 37 of the NDPS act, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.

¶26