Dismissed¶19

Bichitra Patra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC29 Apr 2026BLAPL/5969/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; BLAPL No.5969 of 2025; bail under S.483 BNSS rejected; NDPS Act Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/25; Sec.37 NDPS conditions not satisfied; commercial quantity ganja 507 Kg 800 Gm; Kantamal PS Case No.111 of 2025 / SC (NDPS) Case No.107 of 2025; vehicle OD-22-D-7319; PWs.1-8 examined, none supportive, seven witnesses declined; complainant and IO not yet examined; accused in custody about one year; liberty to renew bail if trial not concluded in six months; G. Satapathy, J.; order dated 29.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; application rejected and BLAPL disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court if the trial is not concluded within six months. ¶19

Bichitra Patra Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act so as to be granted bail, given the recovery of 507 Kgs 800 Grams of contraband Ganja (commercial quantity), the stage of trial (PWs.1-8 examined with none substantially supporting the prosecution, complainant and IO not yet examined), and his detention of near about one year.

¶16

Court's answer

Taking into account the recovery and seizure of 507 Kgs 800 Grams of Contraband Ganja and the non-examination of principal witnesses (the complainant and the IO), this Court does not consider the petitioner to have satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant of bail to an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The alleged quantity of 507 Kgs and 800 Grams of Contraband Ganja is definitely coming under commercial quantity, and grant or refusal of bail in the matter is governed by Sec.37 of NDPS Act.

¶17

Key takeaways

The bail application of the petitioner stands rejected, and the BLAPL stands disposed of.ratio¶19
The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court if the trial is not concluded within six months hence.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under S.483 BNSS by Bichitra Patra in Kantamal PS Case No.111 of 2025 corresponding to SC (NDPS) Case No.107 of 2025, pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kantamal, for offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of NDPS Act, on the allegation of transporting 507 Kgs 800 Grams of contraband Ganja (held to be definitely commercial quantity) in a pick-up vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-22-D-7319. Trial stage: PWs.1 to 8 examined, none substantially supporting the prosecution, seven material witnesses declined, while the complainant and the IO remain unexamined; petitioner detained near about one year. G. Satapathy, J. (order dated 29.04.2026): grant or refusal of bail is governed by Sec.37 of NDPS Act; satisfaction of Sec.37 is sine qua non for bail in NDPS offences involving commercial quantity; on account of the commercial-quantity recovery and non-examination of principal witnesses, the petitioner was held not to have satisfied Sec.37. Bail application rejected; BLAPL disposed of with liberty to renew the prayer before the trial Court if the trial is not concluded within six months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5969 of 2025

¶2

Bichitra Patra

¶3

… Petitioner Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha

¶6

… Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP

¶7

Order No.

¶8

05.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL)29.04.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Perused the office note. Accordingly, the date of last order be corrected by reflecting the year “2026” instead of “2025”. Office is accordingly, requested to carry out necessary correction forthwith.

¶12

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Kantamal PS Case No.111 of 2025 corresponding to SC (NDPS) Case No.107 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kantamal for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 507Kgs and 800Grams of Contraband Ganja in a pick-up vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-22-D-7319.

¶13

In the course of hearing Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although eight witnesses have been examined, but none of them have substantially supported the prosecution case and rest of the seven material witnesses have already been

¶14

Page 1 of 1

¶15

declined and, therefore, the provision of Secs.37, 43 & 50 of NDPS Act being diluted and the petitioner having detained in custody for near about one year, he may kindly be granted bail.

¶16

4.1 On the other hand Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. PP, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that the complainant and the IO are yet to be examined and it is pre-mature to say that the petitioner has satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act.

¶17

This Court has the privilege to go through the depositions of PWs.1 to 8 as annexed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for transporting 507Kgs and 800Grams of Contraband Ganja which is definitely coming under commercial quantity, but grant or refusal of bail is governed by Sec.37 of NDPS Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account the recovery and seizure of 507Kgs and 800Grams of Contraband Ganja and principal witnesses like complainant and the IO being not yet been examined, this Court does not consider the petitioner to have satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant of bail to an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity.

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court, if the trial is not concluded within six months hence.

¶20

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court.

¶21

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶22

Jayakrushna

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 30-Apr-2026 13:13:46

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Bichitra Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bichitra Patra 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayanidhi Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Laxmikanta @ Laxmidhar Pradhani Vs State of Odisha

Sk. Azad Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Bhagyabati Mahananda Vs State of Odisha

Raju Digal Vs State of Odisha