Chandan Das Vs State of Odisha

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

¶13

These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with 2(a)CC Case No. 09 of 2024 arising out of PR No.24 of 2024-25 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Titilagarh for commission of offences punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing 120Kgs of Contraband Ganja jointly in their house.

¶14

Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioners while not pressing the bail application of the Petitioner-Chandan Das in BLAPL No. 4486 of 2025 who

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

has applied for interim bail, prays to expedite the trial. Accordingly, the bail application of Petitioner-Chandan Das stands disposed of as not pressed. However, Ms. Naidu argues in the other bail application for the PetitionerChetabani Das in BLAPL No.5934 of 2025 on merit by submitting inter-alia that the witnesses so far examined has not whispered anything against the Petitioner and the Petitioner being a lady and having detained in custody for more than a year and two months may kindly be granted bail.

¶17

4.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the Petitioner by inter-alia contending that the Petitioner having not satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, her bail application may not be considered.

¶18

It needs to be mentioned here that this Court has the privilege to go through the evidence of PW1 to PW6 whose copy of depositions has been produced by Ms. Naidu, but out of such witnesses, except PW1 and PW6, the four witnesses did not support the prosecution case, however, PW1 who being an Excise Constable and Member of Raiding Party has admitted about accused to be not present at the spot of seizure. No doubt, the quantity of Contraband Ganja seized in this case is commercial in nature and thereby, the provision of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act may ordinarily be attracted, but looking at the evidence and materials placed on record, more particularly when no criminal antecedent of similar nature having reported against the Petitioner and taking into account the law laid

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

down by the Apex Court in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2730 , this Court considers that the Petitioner-Chetabani Das has satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove and taking into account the custody period of the Petitioner, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits the Petitioner to bail.

¶21

Hence, the bail application of the PetitionerChetabani Das in BLAPL No.5934 of 2025 stands allowed and she is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it.

¶22

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

¶23

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶24

Priyajit

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 20-Sep-2025 11:02:47

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Chandan Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Krushna Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Tila@Trilochan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Madan Adjuad Vs State of Odisha

Sameer Kudei Vs State of Odisha

Maheswar Teji Vs State of Odisha

Sushanta Kumar Routray @ Pupuna Vs State of Odisha