Orissa High Court
Abda Khatoon vs Union Of India ... Opposite Party on 24 September, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 9286 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS, 2023).
Abda Khatoon ... Petitioner
-versus-
Union of India ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Sejpada, Advocate
on behalf of
Mr. A.K. Subudhi, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along
with Mr. S. Panda, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:24.09.2025 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is the 3rd successive bail application
U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in
connection with VIII(48)1/Cus(P) Seizure of
Marijuana(H.W)/ BPIA/2025 corresponding to TR
Case No.13 of 2025 pending in the file of learned 3rd
Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, being
charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(B)/ 23/ 27(A)/ 28/ 29 of the NDPS Act,
on the allegation of possessing 9Kgs and 524 Grams
of Contraband Hydroponic Weed (Marijuana/Ganja).
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. P.C.
Sejpada, learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf
of Mr. Akshaya Kumar Subudhi, learned counsel for
the petitioner prays to grant bail to the petitioner by
extending the principle of parity, but Mr. Prasanna
Kumar Parhi, learned DSGI appearing along with Mr.
Sudipto Panda, learned CGC submits that although
complaint has been lodged against the petitioner for
commission of offence punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii))(C)
of NDPS Act with other offences, but the petitioner
being forwarded to the Court for commission of
aforesaid offences, the petitioner has to satisfy the
conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act and unless the
petitioner satisfies such conditions, he should not be
released on bail. Mr. Parhi further submits that there
being possibility of charge being altered for
commission of offence punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii))(C)
of NDPS Act, the petitioner should not be granted
bail, since he is unable to satisfy the conditions of
Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. Mr. Parhi under aforesaid
submission prays to reject the bail application of the
petitioner.
3. In support of the submission as advanced
by the learned DSGI, an affidavit stated to be sworn
in by the Superintendent (SIIB), Customs (Prev.)
Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar has been filed in
which it is stated that the petitioner was found in
possession of 4.016Kgs of Contraband article i.e.
Hydroponic Weed (Marijuana/Ganja). It is specifically
stated in such affidavit that Contraband Narcotic
Drugs like Marijuana (Hydroponic Weed) is extremely
potent and it contains higher percentage of
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is at serial no.150
of the table of the schedule which refers to Sec. 2
(xxiiia) of NDPS Act, where small quantity is specified
in the scheduled to be 2gm, whereas the commercial
quantity is specified to be 50gms. Be that as it may,
the fact remains that the learned trial Court in the
impugned rejection order has stated that the
petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in this
case for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.
20(b)(ii)(B)/23/27(A)/28/29 of the NDPS Act and as
per the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the
learned trial Court, it reveals that the petitioner has
been charged for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(B)/ 23/ 27(A)/ 28/ 29 of the NDPS
Act, but such order has not yet been challenged by
the Union of India to say that the petitioner is liable
for commission of offence punishable U/S.
20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court
considers that the rigors of Section 37 of NPDS Act
would not be attracted in this case, since the order
passed by the learned trial Court while framing
charge has not yet been assailed by the Opposite
Party-Union of India. It is also not in dispute that the
petitioner has been detained in custody since
06.01.2025 and in the meantime, the co-accused
Nasira Begum, who stands on similar footing, has
already been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No.
7896 of 2025.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove and
taking into account the custody period of the
petitioner and keeping in view the inherent right of
the accused to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty at the trial, this Court without expressing any
view on merits, admits the petitioner to bail by
extending the principle of parity.
6. Hence, the bail application of the
Petitioner stands allowed and the Petitioner is allowed
to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two solvent
sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms
and conditions as deem fit and proper by it.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed
of.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 24th day of September, 2025/S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
