Crpc) vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 883 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 883 Ori
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Crpc) vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 3 February, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
          BLAPL Nos.7794 & 13113 of 2024
   (In the matter of application under Section 439 of the
   CrPC).
   Rakesh Kumar Barik                     ...     Petitioners
   (In BLAPL No. 7794 of 2024)
   Biranchi Narayana Sahoo
   (In BLAPL No. 13113 of 2024)
                       -versus-
   State of Odisha                        ... Opposite Party

   For Petitioners          : Mr. A. Pattanaik, Advocate
                              (In BLAPL No. 7794 of 2024)
                              Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate
                              (In BLAPL No. 13113 of 2024)

   For Opposite Party       : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP

       CORAM:JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:03.02.2026 (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

Special Task Force PS Case No.16 of 2022 arising out of

TR Case No.57 of 2022 for commission of offences

punishable U/Ss. 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act pending in

the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.

Judge under NDPS Act, Khordha, on the main allegation

of jointly possessing 1030 Grams of Brown Sugar, along

with co-accused persons.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Achyutananda

Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.

7794 of 2024 submits that co-accused Santosh Rautray

@ Routray & Jagabandhu Biswal have already been

granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, but the

present Petitioner is languishing inside jail custody and

the petitioner is in fact not found in conscious possession

of Contraband article and, therefore, the petitioner may

kindly be granted bail. In echoing such submission, Mr.

Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the

petitioner in BLAPL No. 13113 of 2024 also prays to grant

bail to the petitioner.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor by drawing attention of the

Court to the facts of this case submits that not only the

petitioners were found in conscious possession of

Contraband article, but they have failed to satisfy the

conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act and, therefore, the bail

applications of the petitioners may kindly be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival submission

upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against

the petitioners for jointly possessing 1030 Grams of

Brown Sugar, but even considering the submission as

advanced, the petitioners are individually found allegedly

in possession of 515 Grams Contraband article which is

definitely coming under commercial quantity. 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.

5. It is no doubt advanced for the petitioners that

co-accused have already been granted bail, but the

Coordinate Bench while granting bail to co-accused

Santosh Rautray @ Routray in BLAPL No. 2276 of 2023

has taken note of the fact that no seizure of Contraband

article from him and similar is the observation of the

Coordinate Bench in the case of Jagabandhu Biswal in

BLAPL No. 2256 of 2023. It has been held in catena of

decision that satisfaction of the conditions U/S. 37 of

NDPS Act is sine qua non for grant of bail to an accused

for commission of offence under NPDS Act involving

commercial quantity, but while granting bail to co-

accused Santosh Rautray @ Routray & Jagabandhu

Biswal, the Coordinate Bench has not taken into

consideration the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act which

is sine qua non for grant of bail. In this regard, 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."

6. It is, therefore, very clear from the precedent as

laid down by the Apex Court in Satpal Singh (supra)

that an order granting bail must demonstrate the

conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, but if the order

granting bail to co-accused does not discuss/demonstrate

about the satisfaction of the conditions of Section 37 of

NDPS Act, it would not have any binding precedent for

grant of bail to co-accused. On studied scrutiny of the

materials placed on record in this case together with the

allegation leveled against the petitioners for possessing

more than commercial quantity of Contraband article,

even individually and taking into account the other