[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bhagirathi Meher @ vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 17 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.9798 of 2025 & 1101 of 2026
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS).
Bhagirathi Meher @ ... Petitioners
Bhagarathi Meher
(In BLAPL No. 9798 of 2025)
Santosh Meher
(In BLAPL No. 1101 of 2026)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioners : Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate
(In BLAPL No. 9798 of 2025)
Mr. B.R. Tripathy, Advocate
(In BLAPL No. 1101 of 2026)
For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:17.02.2026(ORAL )
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these two bail applications arise out of one
and same case record, the same are taken up & heard
together and disposed of by this common order with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. These are two bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS
by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with
Padampur PS Case No.192 of 2023 corresponding to
Special GR Case No.57-B of 2023 being charge sheeted
for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.
20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act pending in the Court of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Padampur, on the
allegation of possessing 476 Kgs and 280 Grams of
Contraband Ganja in the house of co-accused Chhuta @
Indrajit Meher along with co-accused persons.
3. Heard, Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the
Petitioner in BLAPL No.9798 of 2025; Mr. Biswajit Ranjan
Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No.
1101 of 2026 and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. PP in
the matter and perused the record.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against
the Petitioners for possessing net weight of 476 Kgs and
280 Grams of Contraband Ganja in the newly constructed
house of co-accused accused Chhuta @ Indrajit Meher
along with other co-accused persons and they are
accordingly charge sheeted as absconders for commission
of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS
Act, but the paramount consideration in granting bail is
securing the attendance of the accused at the trial, which
consideration has been thwarted by the aforesaid conduct
of the Petitioners for remaining as absconders. Besides,
the quantity of Contraband article seized in this case is
much more than the limit of commercial quantity of
20Kgs and the Petitioners, thereby, are required to
satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, which is
sine qua non for grant of bail for commission of offence
under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, but one of
the stipulations as prescribed in Sec. 37 of NDPS Act is
unlikelihood of commission of offence by the accused
while on bail, however, the alleged involvement of the
Petitioner-Bhagirathi Meher @ Bhagarathi Meher in
Padampur PS Case No. 149 of 2014 is an impediment for
recording satisfaction U/S. 37 of NDPS Act. Additionally,
the bail application of the Petitioner Santosh Meher was
earlier rejected by this Court in BLAPL No. 6111 of 2025,
but there is virtually no change in circumstance to
consider this bail application afresh.
5. No doubt, the Petitioners set plea of parity for
their release on bail, but they do not stand with similar
footings with co-accused released on bail inasmuch as co-
accused persons released on bail do not have any
criminal antecedent and they have not been shown as
absconders in the charge sheet. Besides, the orders
granting bail to co-accused persons do not disclose about
discussion the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, which is
sine qua non for grant of bail for commission of offence
under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, but on
careful scrutiny of materials placed on record together
with the discussion made hereinabove does not disclose
the present Petitioners to have satisfied the conditions of
Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. In this regard, this Court is fortified
with the decision in Satpal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab;
(2018) 13 SCC 813, wherein the pre-arrest bail
application of one accused namely Satpal Singh was
turned down by one of the Bench of High Court, whereas
the pre-arrest bail application of co-accused Beant Singh
and Gurwinder Singh had been allowed by another Bench
of the said High Court, but after noticing the provisions of
Sec.37 of NDPS Act, the Apex Court while upholding the
view of the learned Judge declining to give protection to
accused Satpal Singh for not recording satisfaction of the
conditions U/S.37 of NDPS Act cancelled the pre-arrest
bail granted by the High Court to co-accused Beant Singh
and Gurwinder Singh for not recording satisfaction of the
conditions U/S.37 of the NDPS Act which is sine qua non
for granting bail to an accused for offences involving
commercial quantity. The relevant observation of Apex
Court in Satpal Singh (supra) in Paragraph-14 is
extracted as under:-
"14. xx xx. The quantity is reportedly
commercial. In the facts and circumstance
of the case, the High Court could not have
and should not have passed the order
U/S.438 or 439 of CrPC without
reference to Sec.37 of NDPS Act and
without entering a finding on the required
level of satisfaction in case the Court was
otherwise inclined to grant bail. Such a
satisfaction having not been entered, the
order dated 21.09.2007 (granting pre-
arrest bail to accused person) is only to be
set aside and we do so."
6. In view of the discussions made hereinabove
coupled with failure of the Petitioners to satisfy the
conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the Petitioners.
Hence, the bail applications of these petitioners
stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPL Nos. 9798 of
2025 & 1101 of 2026 stand disposed of.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the day of 17th February, 2026/Priyajit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
