Dismissed¶¶23

Pabitra Gouda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Oct 2025BLAPL/787/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; BLAPL No.787 of 2025; bail under S.483 BNSS rejected; NDPS Act S.20(b)(ii)(C); S.37 NDPS Act bar on bail for commercial quantity; 300 Kgs contraband ganja; vehicle owner implication (Max Pick-up Van OR-02-AE-1825); Paralakhemundi Excise Station PR No.59 of 2024-25; 2(a)CC Case No.14 of 2024, Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati; prior acquittal in 2(a)CC Case No.15 of 2023 / PR No.03 of 2023-24; reliance on Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346; direction to expedite trial; Justice G. Satapathy; order dated 13.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; alternative oral prayer allowed — trial to be expedited if there is no other legal impediment. ¶¶23

Pabitra Gouda Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; alternative oral prayer allowed — trial to be expedited if there is no other legal impediment.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose implication rests on being the owner of the vehicle allegedly used to transport 300 Kgs of contraband ganja (commercial quantity), satisfies the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act so as to be granted bail, notwithstanding the Additional Public Prosecutor's opposition and his acquittal in an earlier similar case.

¶¶19

Court's answer

On consideration of the rival submissions and the record, and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, the Court found that the petitioner had not satisfied the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and accordingly rejected the bail application.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

In view of the alternative oral prayer advanced for the petitioner, the Court directed that the trial be expedited, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under S.483 BNSS (BLAPL No.787 of 2025) by Prabitra Gouda, implicated as owner of a white colour Max Pick-up Van (Regd. No.OR-02-AE-1825) allegedly used to transport 300 Kgs of contraband ganja — a commercial quantity — in OIC Paralakhemundi Excise Station PR No.59 of 2024-25 / 2(a)CC Case No.14 of 2024 pending before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi, for offences punishable under S.20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act, REJECTED. Counsel urged that the petitioner was neither apprehended from the spot nor connected with the transportation, and had already been acquitted in an earlier similar case (2(a)CC Case No.15 of 2023 / PR No.03 of 2023-24); the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed, contending the S.37 NDPS Act conditions were unmet. Relying on Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, the Court held the S.37 conditions unsatisfied and dismissed the application, while allowing the alternative prayer for expedition of trial. (G. Satapathy, J.; Order dated 13.10.2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.787 of 2025

¶2

Prabitra Gouda

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.K. Das, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

… Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. PP

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶11

Order No.

¶12

05.

¶13

ORDER(ORAL) 13.10.2025

¶14

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶15

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with OIC of Paralakhemundi Excise Station PR No.59 of 2024-25 corresponding to 2(a)CC Case No.14 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi, for commission of offences punishable U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 300Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a white colour Max Pick-up Van bearing Regd. No.OR-02-AE-1825.

¶16

In the course of hearing, Mr. Basanta Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither apprehended from the spot nor has any connection in the transportation of Contraband article, but his implication in this case is only for being the owner of the vehicle in question. Mr. Das further

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

submits that although the petitioner has been shown to have another criminal antecedent of similar nature, but the petitioner has already been acquitted in the said case, which is 2(a)CC Case No.15 of 2023 arising out of PR No.03 of 2023-24 and the petitioner therefore having detained in custody for no fault may kindly be granted bail.

¶19

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that since the petitioner has not satisfied the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act, he should not be granted bail.

¶20

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for allowing his vehicle to transport 300Kgs of Contraband Ganja, which is coming under commercial quantity, but fact remains that no person accused of an offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where the public prosecutor opposes such bail application of the accused; unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the materials placed on record are taken into consideration and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India Vrs. Ajay Kumar

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346 , this Court does not find the petitioner to have satisfied the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

¶23

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. In view of the alternative oral prayer as advanced for the petitioner, trial be expedited, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶24

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Court.

¶26

(G. Satapathy)

¶27

Judge

¶28

Subhasmita

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Oct-2025 15:23:20

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Pabitra Gouda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pabitra Gouda 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

Ajit Roul Vs State of Odisha

Gopinath Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Jena @ Saraju Jena Vs State of Odisha

Tapan Naik Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Behera Vs State of Odisha

Lambodhar Parida @ Hari Vs State of Odisha