Orissa High Court
Md. Israr vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 17 July, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.6421 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS).
Md. Israr ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Nath. Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:17.07.2025 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sadar P.S.
Case No.0107 of 2024 corresponding to T.R. Case
No.67/46 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned ADJ-
cum-Special Judge & P.O. OPID, Sambalpur for
commission of offences punishable under Sections
20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, on the allegation of
transporting 501.5Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a Honda
Brio Car bearing Regd. No.OD-17-K-0452.
2. Heard, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nath, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
3. Mr. Nath, by highlighting the discrepancies in
weighment, compliance of mandatory procedure and
evidence prays to grant bail to the petitioner. On the other
hand Mr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor,
opposes such prayer by contending inter alia that such
discrepancies being a matter of trial cannot be gone into at
the time of consideration of trial.
4. After having considered the rival submissions this
Court is never in doubt that detail analysis of evidence and
meticulous examination of documents on merit should not
be undertaken at the time of consideration of bail. Besides
the bail application of the present petitioner was rejected
by this Court on 02.05.2025 in BLAPL No.7789 of 2024
and virtually there is no change in circumstance to
consider the bail application afresh. Moreover, the
discrepancies in evidence and compliance of procedure can
be agitated at the time of trial. In this regard this Court is
fortified with the decision of the Apex Court in Narcotic
Control Bureau Vrs. Kashif; (2024) SCC Online SC
3848, wherein, the Apex Court in Paragraph-39(v)(vi)
has held as under:-
"(v) any procedural irregularity or
illegality found to have been committed in
conducting the search and seizure during
the course of investigation or thereafter,
would be itself not make the entire
evidence collected during the course of
investigation in admissible. The Court
would have to consider all the
circumstances and find out whether any
serious prejudice has been cause to the
accused"
"(vi) any lapse or delay in compliance of
Sec. 52-A by itself would neither vitiate the
trial nor would entitle the accused to be
released on bail. The Court will have to
consider other circumstances and other
primary evidence collected during the course
of investigation, as also the statutory
presumption permissible U/S. 54 of the
NDPS Act".
5. Further, the Apex Court in Kashif(supra) has
also held in Paragraphs-8 & 24 as under:-
"8. There has been consistent and persistent
view of this Court that in the NDPS cases,
where the offence is punishable with
minimum sentence of ten years, the accused
shall generally be not released on bail.
Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an
exception. While considering the application
for bail, the court has to bear in mind the
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
which are mandatory in nature. The
recording of finding as mandated in Section
37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the
accused involved in the offences under the
said Act. Apart from the granting opportunity
of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, the other
two conditions i.e., (i) the satisfaction of the
court that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the
alleged offence and that (ii) he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail, are the
cumulative and not alternative conditions.
24. Sec. 52-A was inserted only for the
purpose of the early disposal of the seized
Contraband Drugs and Substances,
considering the hazardous nature,
vulnerability to theft, constraint of proper
storage place etc. There cannot be any two
options on the issue about the early
disposal of the Contraband Drugs and
Substances, more particularly when it was
inserted to implement the provisions of
International Convention on the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,
however delayed compliance or non-
compliance of the said provision by the
concerned officer authorized to make
application to the Magistrate could never
be treated as an illegality which would
entitle the accused to be released on
bail or claim acquittal in the trial, when
sufficient material is collected by the
investigating officer to establish that the
search and seizure of the Contraband
substance was made in due compliance of
the mandatory provisions of the Act".
6. In view of the above facts and after having
considered the rival submissions and taking into account
the seizure of commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja
from the car allegedly in occupation of the petitioner and
his consequent failure to satisfy the conditions of Section
37 of NDPS Act, more particularly when trial has already
commenced, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected. In view of the alternative oral prayer as
advanced for the petitioner, the trial be expedited, if there
is no legal impediment.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Signature NotOrissa High Court, Cuttack,
Verified
Dated the17th day of July, 2025/Jayakrushna
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Jul-2025 18:17:52
