Dismissed¶51

Rohita Behera @ Landa v. State of Odisha

Bail – NDPS Act – Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 and 37

Orissa HC3 May 2025BLAPL/670/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused (BLAPL No. 670 of 2025, decided 03.05.2025, Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi): Rohit Behera @ Landa accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 NDPS Act, Athamallik P.S. FIR No. 131 dated 11.06.2023, 161 kg ganja seized (commercial quantity); Section 37 stringent test not satisfied; custody since 11.06.2023 and completed investigation held insufficient; parity with enlarged co-accused rejected; Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu (2023 SCC OnLine SC 346) relied on; BLAPL dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act for commercial quantities is governed by the stringent test of Section 37: the Court must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit a similar offence while on bail. ¶29

Rohita Behera @ Landa Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 11.06.2023 in Special (NDPS) Case No. 11 of 2023 involving seizure of 161 kg of ganja (commercial quantity) under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 NDPS Act, is entitled to release on bail notwithstanding the stringent requirements of Section 37 NDPS Act. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Operational details provided by the apprehended co-accused naming the petitioner, though not substantive evidence at trial unless duly corroborated, cannot be dismissed out of hand at the bail stage.

¶42

Key takeaways

The petitioner's alleged role, even if indirect, cannot be brushed aside without trial scrutiny; releasing him would amount to prejudging the issue.ratio¶43
Enlargement of other co-accused does not create an entitlement to bail; parity yields where roles are unequal or surrounding facts distinguish the applicant's case.ratio¶44
In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, considerable time spent in custody and completion of investigation cannot by themselves justify bail; the statutory reasonable-grounds test must still be met.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - NDPS Act - Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 and 37 - alleged trading of ganja, 161 kg seized, admittedly commercial quantity - petitioner in custody since 11.06.2023 and investigation over, held insufficient without Section 37 reasonable-grounds satisfaction - petitioner's name surfaced in disclosures of apprehended co-accused; such statements, though not substantive evidence unless corroborated, cannot be dismissed at bail stage - indirect role in trafficking chain not to be brushed aside without trial - parity with co-accused already enlarged rejected as roles unequal - Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346 relied upon - BLAPL dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 670 of 2025

¶3

Rohit Behera @ Landa

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Chitaranjan Mishra, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

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

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶10

Order ORDER No. 03.05.2025

¶11

F.I.R. No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
131	11.06.2023	Athamallik	Spl. (NDPS) Case No.11/2023 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Athhamallik	Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶12

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶15

The petitioner being in custody in connection with Special

¶16

(NDPS) Case No. 11 of 2023 arising out of Athamallik P.S.

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-May-2025 18:57:21

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

Case No.131 of 2023, pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Athamallik, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

¶21

The prosecution case in short is that while getting information regarding trading of ganja in Athmallik area, the Inspector of Police STF, CIC, CB of Odisha proceeded to the house of accused of village Chandrapur. Seeing them, the present accused along with other co-accused persons tried to flee away from the spot. Thereafter, they caught hold the present accused along with other two co-accused persons and on search, they recovered four numbers of plastic gunny bag and after measurement, it could be known that the said ganja of 161 kg was seized from the possession of accused in presence of Executive Magistrate. During interrogation, the accused admitted that he along with other co-accused persons used to cultivate ganja in the jungle and after producing the same from Gochhapada side for trading purpose. On being demand by the police, the accused could not produce any license or authority regarding possession of such contraband ganja. Hence, this case.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits nothing has

¶23

been seized from the conscious possession of the present

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-May-2025 18:57:21

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

Petitioner and there is no iota of evidence against the present Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2023. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed.

¶28

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.

¶29

At the heart of this petition lies a request for bail in a case involving alleged possession and transportation of commercial quantity of Ganja, precisely 161 kg. as per the seizure report. The law under the NDPS Act draws a firm line when it comes to such quantities. The threshold for judicial discretion in granting bail under Section 37 is significantly higher than in ordinary offences. The Court is bound to be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, not only that the accused is not guilty of the offence but also that he is not likely to commit a similar offence while on bail.

¶30

The main thrust of the Petitioner’s argument is that he was not present at the spot, no contraband was recovered from him directly, and his implication rests solely on the confessional statement of a co-accused. While these are certainly relevant considerations, they cannot be viewed in isolation, especially in the context of how narcotics offences

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-May-2025 18:57:21

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

are frequently committed, not by lone actors but through loosely connected chains involving multiple participants, each playing a role in transportation, logistics, concealment, or financing.

¶35

It is well settled that bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act, particularly for commercial quantities, is governed by a more stringent test. In the case of Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu¹ the Supreme Court reiterated the stance that no person accused of trading commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless Court is satisfied of reasonable grounds proving innocence. The relevant excerpts are produced below:

¶36

“16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶37

17. The quantity of “ganja” recovered is admittedly of commercial quantity. The High Court has not recorded any finding that the respondent-accused is not prima facie guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit the same offence when enlarged on bail rather his antecedents are indicative that he is a regular offender. In the absence of recording of such satisfaction by the court, we are of the opinion that the

¶38

Signature Not Verified1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-May-2025 18:57:21

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

High Court manifestly erred in enlarging the respondent-accused on bail.”

¶42

Here, the record shows that during investigation, the Petitioner’s name surfaced in the context of broader operational details provided by the apprehended coaccused. While such statements may not be substantive evidence at trial unless duly corroborated, at this stage they are not to be dismissed out of hand.

¶43

The Petitioner’s alleged role, even if indirect, cannot be brushed aside without trial scrutiny. Releasing an accused connected to such an offence on bail would amount to prejudging the issue, something this Court is not prepared to do.

¶44

It is true that other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. However, parity is not a passport to liberty in all cases. The principle must bend where the roles are unequal or the surrounding facts distinguish the Petitioner's case. Courts must be vigilant that granting bail in cases involving organized drug trafficking does not inadvertently embolden the network.

¶45

The Court is conscious that the petitioner has spent considerable time in custody and the investigation is over. But in cases under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, bail cannot be granted only on the basis of time

¶46

spent. The law requires reasonable grounds to believe the Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-May-2025 18:57:21

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

Murmu

¶50

accused is not guilty and will not commit a similar offence. That test is not met in the present case.

¶51