[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sameep Ahammed vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 23 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.11623 & 12515 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS).
Sameep Ahammed ... Petitioners
(In BLAPL No. 11623 of 2025)
Mahendra Singh
(In BLAPL No. 12515 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Rout, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:23.02.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these two bail applications arise out of one
and same case record, the same are 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
Jeypore Sadar PS Case No.181 of 2022 arising out of TR
Case No.32 of 2022 for commission of offences
punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act pending in
the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Jeypore, on the main allegation of transporting
647Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a container bearing
Registration No. RJ-18-GB-4145, along with co-accused
persons.
3. Heard, Mr. Ajay Kumar Rout, learned counsel for
the Petitioners and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. PP in
the matter and perused the record.
4. Bail to the Petitioners is in fact sought for on the
ground of parity and absence of Presiding Officer of the
learned trial Court, but fact remains that there is
allegation against the Petitioners for transporting 647Kgs
of Contraband Ganja, which is well above the commercial
quantity and grant or refusal of bail for commission of
offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is
governed by Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, which prescribes that
no person accused of offence under NDPS Act involving
commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where
Public Prosecutor opposes such bail application; unless
the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence
and he is unlikely to commit offence while on bail. No
doubt, the Petitioners have sought for bail on the ground
of parity, but the order by which bail is granted to co-
accused does not demonstrate any discussion 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. In this context, this Court is fortified
with the decision of the Apex Court 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."
5. Further, it is advanced for the Petitioners to
grant bail to the Petitioners for want of Presiding Officer
of the trial Court, but the said contention can be
remedied by requesting the learned District & Sessions
Judge, Koraput at Jeypore to take proper steps to either
assign the case to himself or any other competent Court
at the station for ensuring trial in this case. Besides, in
the meanwhile, seven witnesses have already been
examined. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
taking into account the materials so placed on record,
this Court hardly finds the Petitioners to have satisfied
the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act.
Hence, the bail applications of these petitioners
stand rejected. The learned District & Sessions Judge,
Koraput at Jeypore is hereby requested to take
appropriate steps for ensuring trial to the Petitioners by
taking necessary approval of this Court.
6. Accordingly, these BLAPL Nos. 11623 & 12515
of 2025 stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be
immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court, so
also to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Koraput at
Jeypore for compliance.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
rd
Digitally Signed Dated the 23 February, 2026/Priyajit
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 24-Feb-2026 17:20:42
