Ganeswar Das Vs State of Odisha

This is the bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Choudwar P.S. Case No. 263 of 2023 corresponding to of Special G.R.(Special) Case No. 15 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 351Kgs 800Grams of Contraband Ganja in an Innova car bearing Regd. No. OD-33-G-4757.

¶13

In the course of hearing Mr. Ramesh Chandra Maharana, learned counsel for the petitioner by producing the surrender certificate of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not misused the liberty granted to him in the form of interim bail, but the trial is progressing at snail pace and even after more than two years and six months of the custody

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

of the petitioner, the trial is yet to be concluded and, therefore, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr.M.K.Mohanty, learned Addl. PP, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter alia that since the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

¶16

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for transporting 351Kgs 800Grams of Contraband Ganja which is well above the commercial quantity, in an Innova car, but on perusal of materials placed on record, this Court hardly finds the petitioner to have satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. No doubt there is delay in disposal of the case, but delay cannot be a ground to grant bail to a person accused of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, unless the accused satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act as held by the Apex Court in Union of India vrs Vigin K. Varghese; (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 1101 . The relevant observation of the Apex Court in the said judgment is quoted herein below:-

¶17

“17 . The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail . Such a finding is not a casual

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

observation . It is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail must necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the material available . A conclusion of this nature, if returned without addressing the prosecution’s assertions of operative control and antecedent involvement , risks trenching upon appreciation of evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at first instance”.

¶20

In this case, no doubt the petitioner has suffered some custodial detention, but trial is progressing. The quantity of Contraband Ganja seized in this case is much more than commercial quantity, but the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶21

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶22

kishore

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:36:55

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Ganeswar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganeswar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagabandhu Nath Vs State of Odisha

Dipu @ Dipu Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sujit Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Bindhani Vs State of Odisha

Gobardhana Harijan Vs State of Odisha

Ayush Kashyap Vs State of Odisha