[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Shaikh Afsar Mehboob vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 1 December, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.5033 of 2025
Shaikh Afsar Mehboob ... Petitioner
Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
01.12.2025
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is a 2nd successive bail application
U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of
bail in connection with Kalimela P.S. FIR No. 266 of
2023 corresponding to of Special G.R. Case No. 217
of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, for commission
of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act, on the main allegation of transporting 496Kgs of
Contraband Ganja in a TATA Eicher vehicle bearing
Regd. No. MH-24-AU-6851.
3. Heard Mr. Rajib Lochan Pattnaik, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Satpathy,
learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the
record.
4. Bail is mainly sought for to the petitioner on
the ground of delay in disposal of the case, but very
recently the Apex Court in a decision in Union of
India vrs Vigin K. Varghese; (2025) LiveLaw
(SC) 1101 has made it very clear that delay in
disposal of the case would not be a ground to grant
bail in a case for commission of offence under NDPS
Act involving commercial quantity. The relevant
observation of the Apex Court in the said judgment is
quoted herein below:-
"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
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".
5. Another plea was in fact advanced for the
petitioner that the delay in disposal of the case is on
account of delay in submission of chemical
examination report, but a perusal of the report of the
learned trial Court reveals that the chemical
examination report has already been received and
trial has already commenced. Be that as it may, on
going through the materials placed on record, there
appears alleged recovery of 496Kgs of Contraband
Ganja which is coming under commercial quantity
from the vehicle allegedly in occupation of the
petitioner and thereby, the petitioner is still required
to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act.
However, on perusal of record, this Court hardly finds
the petitioner to have satisfied the conditions of Sec.
37 of NDPS Act.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands
disposed of.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:10:59
