[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sudesh Mistry vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 4 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.10485 of 2025, 98 & 353 of 2026
(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Sudesh Mistry ... Petitioners
(In BLAPL No.10485 of 2025)
Sakhanath Ray
(In BLAPL No.98 of 2026)
Paresh Biswas
(In BLAPL No.356 of 2026)
Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.10485 of 2025)
Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate
(in BLAPL Nos.98 & 356 of 2026)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING &JUDGMENT:04.02.2026
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these three bail applications arise out
of one and same case record, the same are taken up
together and disposed of by this common order with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. These are applications U/S.483 BNSS by
the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with
Malkangiri PS Case No.248 of 2025 corresponding to
Spl GR Case No.74 of 2025, pending in the Court of
learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri
for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. The allegation as emerged out from the FIR
discloses that while the informant police officer and his
staff were conducting MV checking duty on 19.05.2024,
they noticed two vehicles, one white color Bolero Neo
bearing Regd. No.OD-30-D-8658 and one light blue
color Tata Pickup Van bearing Regd. No.TS-12-UE-3701
loaded with plastic bags at Goudaguda chowk,
Malkangiri and on suspicion, they directed the drivers of
the aforesaid two vehicles to stop, however, seeing the
police checking, the drivers of both the vehicles
stopped and driver of bolero Neo and occupant of Tata
Pickup Van managed to escape from the spot, but the
police party apprehended the driver of Tata Pickup
namely Sujan Bepari and occupant of bolero vehicle
namely Sudesh Mistry and on search, the police party
recovered 46bags each containing 20Kgs of contraband
ganja from the pickup van and four bags each
containing 20Kgs contraband ganja from the bolero Neo
vehicle and accordingly, the police party recovered
1000Kgs of Contraband Ganja from both the vehicles.
Further, the police party on interrogation came to know
that Paresh Biswas, Sakhanath Ray had managed to
abscond from the spot.
On the FIR by the informant police official,
Malkangiri PS Case No.248 of 2025 was registered for
commission of offence punishable U/S.20(b)(ii)(C)/
25/29 of NDPS Act which culminated in submission of
charge-sheet against the petitioners and co-accused
persons for the self-same offences, resulting in present
bail applications before this Court after the rejection of
bail application to the petitioners by the learned Special
Judge, Malkangiri.
4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Pranab Kumar
Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL
No.10485 of 2025 submits that the petitioner was not
having any knowledge of transportation of contraband
ganja in the vehicle since he was a mere occupant of
the vehicle and he having not being found in conscious
possession of Contraband Article, it can be well
considered that the petitioner has satisfied the
conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act and, therefore, the
petitioner having already been detained in custody for a
substantial period may kindly be granted bail.
4.1 On the other hand, Mr. Abhas Mohanty, learned
counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.98 of 2026 &
356 of 2026 submits that neither the petitioners were
apprehended from the spot nor were they in found
conscious possession of contraband article and they
having been subsequently falsely arrested in this case
may kindly be allowed to go on bail as the provision of
Sec.37 of NDPS Act is not attracted against them.
4.2 On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl.
PP by inviting attention to the criminal antecedents of
the petitioners Sakhanath Ray and Paresh Biswas for
similar offences prays to reject their bail applications.
Mr. M.R. Patra also submits that the petitioner Sudesh
Mistry being found in conscious possession of the
contraband article of huge quantity and he having not
satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, his bail
application may kindly be rejected.
5. After having considered the rival submission
upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against
the petitioners for transporting huge quantity of
Contraband Ganja to the tune of 1000Kg in two
vehicles, but the quantity of Contraband Ganja seized
in this case is much more than the commercial
quantity. Law is fairly well settled that grant or refusal
of bail for commission of offence under NDPS Act
involving commercial quantity is governed by Sec.37 of
NDPS Act, which provides 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 to believe that
the accused is not guilty of the offence and he is unlikely
to commit offence while on bail and in this case, the
petitioner Sudesh Mistry is allegedly apprehended from
the spot along with the contraband article, but the
petitioners Sakhanath Ray and Paresh Biswas have been
subsequently arrested, however, the allegation against
them is for procuring and supplying the Contraband
Ganja in this case.
6. One of the important consideration in granting
bail as per Sec.37 of NDPS Act to an accused for
commission of offence under NDPS Act involving
commercial quantity is his unlikelihood of committing
offence while on bail, but the petitioner Paresh Biswas
is allegedly involved in following five cases:-
(i) Cr. No.78/2025 of Gangavaram PS, Andhra
Pradesh U/S.8(C) r/w Sec.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS
Act;
(ii) Cr. No.246 of 2023 of Umadi PS, Jath District,
Maharashtra-Seizure of 80Kgs of Ganja;
(iii) Kalimela PS Case No.64 of 2022 U/S.420 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC;
(iv) Motu PS Case No. U/S.294/420 r/w Sec.34 of
IPC
(v) Orkel PS Case No.410 of 2024
U/S.125(a)/281 of BNS.
Similarly, the prosecution has reported against
the petitioner Sakhanath Ray the following three
criminal cases:-
(i) Cr. No.78 of 2025 of Gangavaram PS, Andhra
Pradesh U/S.8(C) r/w Sec.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS
Act
(ii) Cr. No.52 of 2017 of NCB, KZU, West Bengal
(iii) Malkangiri PS FIR No.55 dated 06.03.2013,
U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.
The aforesaid two petitioners have never
disclosed their aforesaid criminal antecedents in their
bail applications which is not only material omission,
but also suppression of important fact, which cannot be
taken lightly.
7. A studied scrutiny of the materials placed on
record, together with the criminal antecedents of the
petitioners as referred to above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioners Sakhanath Ray
and Paresh Biswas have not been able to satisfy the
conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act. Similarly, the
petitioner Sudesh Mistry being allegedly found in
possession of such a huge quantity of Contraband
Ganja is also not considered to have satisfied the
conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act. In view of the
aforesaid discussion of facts and taking into account the
other circumstances on record vis-à-vis the materials
placed on record and the petitioners having not been
able to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act
which is sine qua non for grant of bail to an accused for
commission of offence under NDPS Act involving
commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioners.
8. Hence, these three bail applications of the
petitioners namely Sudesh Mistry in BLAPL No.10485 of
2024, Sakhanath Ray in BLAPL No.98 of 2026 and
Paresh Biswas in BLAPL No.356 of 2026 stand rejected.
Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH th
Reason: AuthenticationDated the 04 day of February, 2026/Jayakrushna
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 05-Feb-2026 13:03:15
