Dismissed¶¶14

Sk. Azad v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC27 Apr 2026BLAPL/1344/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 37 NDPS Act bail rejection commercial quantity brown sugar; BLAPL 1344/2026 Sk. Azad; BLAPL 6378/2025 Niranjan Pattajoshi; speedy trial will not displace Section 37; Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421; Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346; U/S.483 BNSS bail application; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice G. Satapathy; NDPS Sections 21(c)/29; trial expedited directive.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; alternative oral prayer acceded to — trial to be expedited if there is no other legal impediment, with a copy of the order to be transmitted immediately to the learned trial Court for reference. ¶¶14

Sk. Azad Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, accused of offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity of contraband, satisfy the twin conditions prescribed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act for release on bail, notwithstanding the delay and non-conclusion of the trial. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

This Court hardly finds the petitioners to have satisfied the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act — reasonable grounds for believing the accused not guilty, and not likely to commit any offence while on bail — which the Court identifies as the sine qua non for grant of bail in offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity; accordingly both bail applications stand rejected.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

Emphasising the settled law of the Apex Court (State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora), the Court holds that the plea arising from the right to speedy trial and the delay/non-conclusion of trial does not displace the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, thereby disposing of counsel's delay-based argument.

¶¶12

Key takeaways

The quantity allegedly seized in the present case being much more than the commercial quantity is expressly weighed by the Court as a ground for finding the Section 37 conditions unsatisfied.ratio¶¶14
The Court weighs petitioner Sk. Azad's alleged involvement in another case under the NDPS Act against grant of bail in finding the Section 37 conditions unsatisfied, notwithstanding counsel's claim that involvement in a Section 21(b) offence would not create such a bar.ratio¶¶14
Petitioner Niranjan Pattajoshi @ Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu is recorded as allegedly having been found in possession of 500 Grams of brown sugar, i.e., commercial quantity of contraband, which the Court weighs against grant of bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa HC (Justice G. Satapathy, oral order dated 27.04.2026) — BLAPL No.1344 of 2026 (Sk. Azad) and BLAPL No.6378 of 2025 (Niranjan Pattajoshi @ Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu) REJECTED. Bail sought under Section 483 BNSS in Spl. Crime Unit PS Case No.14 of 2023 / TR Case No.576 of 2023 (3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar) for offences punishable under Sections 21(c)/29 NDPS Act, main allegation possession of 1 Kg 12 Grams brown sugar. Court finds the petitioners have not satisfied the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act — described as the sine qua non for bail in offences involving commercial quantity — and holds, adopting the Apex Court's settled position in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421), that the right to speedy trial will not displace Section 37 conditions. Grounds weighed: seized quantity far above commercial quantity; Sk. Azad's alleged involvement in another NDPS case (STF PS, CID CB BBSR Case No.12 of 2019, Sections 307/506/120-B/34 IPC rw Sections 21(b)/29 NDPS Act and Sections 25(1-AA)/27 Arms Act); Niranjan's alleged possession of 500 Grams brown sugar — law in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu ((2023) SCC OnLine SC 346) taken into account. Trial directed to be expedited.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Sk. Azad (In BLAPL No.1344 of 2026) Niranjan Pattajoshi @ Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu

¶2

(In BLAPL No.6378 of 2025) … Petitioners

¶3

Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate (in BLAPL No.1344 of 2026) Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate (in BLAPL No.6378 of 2025)

-versus-

Order No.

02.

State of Orissa

¶8

State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL):27.04.2026 1. These three bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners are for grant of bail in connection with Spl. Crime Unit PS Case No.14 of 2023 corresponding to TR Case No.576 of 2023 pending in the file of learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing 1Kg and 12Grams of Brown Sugar.

¶9

Heard, Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.1344 of 2026; Mr. Sanjit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6378 of 2025 and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in these matters and perused the record. 3. In addition to long delay in trial, Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.1344 of 2026, however, submits that the petitioner was neither found in conscious possession of Contraband article nor was he found involved in other case of similar nature,

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

but the petitioner being allegedly involved in an another case which is for offence U/S. 21(b) of NDPS Act, the same would not create a bar as required U/S.37 of NDPS Act for granting bail to him. Mr. Sanjit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6378 of 2025 also seeks for grant of bail to the petitioner for non-conclusion of trial, even after two and half years of his custody,

¶12

Apropos the submission as advanced for the petitioner, it is to be emphasized that law is fairly well settled in a very recent decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vrs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421 , wherein it has been held that the right to speedy trial will not displace the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. Besides, it is also not disputed about the alleged involvement of the petitioner-Sk. Azad in STF PS, CID CB BBSR Case No.12 of 2019 for offences U/Ss.307/506/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sections 21(b)/29 of NDPS Act and Sections 25(1-AA)/27 of Arms Act. 5. Grant or refusal of bail for commission of offences under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is governed by Section 37 of NDPS Act, which prescribes 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 (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In this case, the petitionerNiranjan Pattajoshi @ Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu has allegedly been found in possession of 500Grams of Brown

¶13

Page 2 of 3

¶14

Sugar and similarly, the allegation against the petitionerSk. Azad for assisting the co-accused to possess commercial quantity of Contraband article. In the aforesaid facts and situation, especially the quantity allegedly seized in this case being much more than the commercial quantity and the petitioner-Sk. Azad being found involved in another case under NDPS Act and the petitionerNiranjan Pattajoshi @ Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu being allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity of Contraband article and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India Vrs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346 , this Court hardly finds the petitioners to have satisfied the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant of bail to an accused for commission of an offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity. 6. Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Sk. Azad (In BLAPL No.1344 of 2026) and Niranjan Pattajoshi @ Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu (In BLAPL No.6378 of 2025) stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. 7. In view of the alternative oral prayer as advanced for the petitioner, trial be expedited, if there is no other legal impediment. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court for reference.

¶15

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶16

Signature Not Verified Subhasmita

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Apr-2026 11:18:27

¶18

Page 3 of 3

Sk. Azad v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Azad 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

Shriram General Insurance Vs Manoranjan Kamila

Rabindra Sahu @ Rinku Vs State of Odisha

Samim Ansari Vs State of Odisha

Dayanidhi Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Laxmikanta @ Laxmidhar Pradhani Vs State of Odisha

Basudev Pradhan Vs State of Odisha