Mousak Ganda Vs State of Odisha

Special G.R. Case No.222 of 2023 registered on the allegation of the commission of the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act pending in

¶20

the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Malkangiri.

¶21

3. The petitioners had approached the learned Court below praying for grant of bail. The learned Court

¶22

below vide its order dated 03.02.2026 has rejected the

¶23

bail application of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the

¶24

Page 1 of 6

¶25

petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 praying for enlargement on bail.

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction from the petitioners, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioners are pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶27

5. On 07.11.2023 at about 10:50 A.M., while the informant along with his staff members was performing patrolling duty, he received reliable information that a huge quantity of contraband ganja had been concealed in a bushy area near Surulukonda Canal Road and that two persons were guarding the same for the purpose of transportation. Acting upon the said information, the informant along with his staff proceeded to the spot for verification and recovered nine plastic sacks containing suspected contraband ganja concealed in the bushes. It is alleged that a strong smell of ganja was emanating from the said sacks. On being questioned, the two persons present at

¶28

the spot disclosed their identities as Mousak Ganda

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

and Chaitan Harijan. They further stated that one Atul Saha had engaged them as labourers for procuring ganja from the Ghat areas of Poplur and Naglur. As per the instructions of Atul Saha, the procured ganja was packed into nine plastic sacks and concealed in the bushes alongside the canal road. The said persons were allegedly guarding the sacks while Atul Saha had gone to Malkangiri to arrange a four-wheeler pick-up vehicle for transportation of the contraband. Thereafter, upon observing all the formalities relating to search and seizure, the police recovered and seized 225 kilograms of contraband ganja. Hence, the F.I.R. was registered.

¶31

6. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case on 04.05.2024. The petitioners have been in custody since 07.11.2023. The allegation against the petitioners are that they were engaged as labourers and, acting on the instructions of the principal accused, namely, Atul Saha, were guarding the contraband ganja from where 225 kilograms of contraband was recovered and seized.

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government

¶34

Advocate for the State fairly submits that since the petitioners have already remained in custody for about three years, their case is covered by the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vrs. State of Odisha reported in 2023

¶35

LiveLaw (SC) 533 . The following paragraphs are relevant to be reproduced for appreciation of the submission made by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel:-

¶36

“3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.

¶37

As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent-State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1^st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2^nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

¶38

However, we find some merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-State that the petitioner being not a resident of the State of Orissa, some stringent conditions are required to be imposed upon him.

¶39

Consequently, while directing that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

Trial Court, it is directed that he shall be required to produce two local sureties before the trial Court. The petitioner shall also appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing. In case he absents himself, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him today by this Court. Ordered accordingly.”

¶42

8. Regard being had to the period of custody from

¶43

07.11.2023 and the nature of accusation, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on bail.

¶44

Hence, the petitioners are directed to be

¶45

released on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:-

¶46

(i) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till disposal of the trial.

¶47

(ii) They shall appear before the trial Court

¶48

on each date on which the case is posted for trial. In the event of their absence without furnishing any reason to the satisfaction of the trial Court, it is open for the trial Court to issue coercive process to ensure their

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

presence and on the application being filed by

¶51

the prosecution, the concession of bail

¶52

granted by this Court shall stand withdrawn.

¶53

(iii) They shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶54

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail

¶55

consideration for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners. In the event, any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioners, the prosecution is given liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for recalling the concession of bail. If such application is moved, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit.

¶56

9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶57

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶58

Swarna

¶59

Signature Not Verified

¶60

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-May-2026 18:38:23

¶61

Page 6 of 6

Mousak Ganda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mousak Ganda 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

Sarat Ch.Mahapatra Vs Rabindranath Dash

Dakendra Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sagar Jena Vs Union of India

Shantanu Sa Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Kumar Boitai Vs Ajay Kumar Boitai

Akash Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha