[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Gyana Ranjan Panda 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 No.13907 2025
Gyana Ranjan Panda ... Petitioner
Mr. B.R. Dalai, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 04.02.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is the 2nd bail application U/S.483 of BNSS
by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
Inspector of Excise, Boudh Range PR Case No.30 of
2022-23 corresponding to 2(a)CC Case No.17 of 2022
(NDPS) pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Boudh, for commission of offences
punishable U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the
allegation of transporting 107Kgs of Contraband Ganja
in a Bolero vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-19-M-0795.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Biswaranjan
Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting
attention of the Court to an agreement for sale submits
that the petitioner had already sold out the vehicle in
question in the year 2022, but the same was seized in
the year 2024 in this case and, thereby, the petitioner
having no role in the commission of offence, he may
kindly be granted bail.
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the agreement to
sale which was produced before this Court is not a part
of the document of investigation and, thereby, it cannot
be relied upon to conclude that the petitioner had
already sold out the vehicle, more particularly when the
registration document stands in the name of the
petitioner and, thereby, the petitioner having definite
role in this case, his bail application may kindly be
rejected.
4. After having considered rival submissions upon
perusal of record, there appears allegation against the
petitioner for transporting 107Kgs of Contraband Ganja,
which is well above the commercial quantity in the
vehicle which stands recorded in the name of the
petitioner, but right now the petitioner has taken a plea
that he had already sold out the vehicle in the year
2022, however, such plea can be addressed to at the
time of trial. Further, the document which the petitioner
seeks to rely is a plain paper agreement reduced to
writing on a non-judicial stamp paper, but it is not
known as to whether another person namely Pratap
Behera in fact exists and he owns the vehicle in
question and these factors are definitely subject of trial
inasmuch as the aforesaid document i.e. a deed of
agreement is not the part of the investigation. On the
other hand, grant or refusal of bail for offence under
NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is governed by
Section 37 of NDPS Act which prescribes that no person
accused of an offence under NDPS Act involving
commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where
the public prosecutor opposes such bail application of
the accused; unless the Court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. In this context, this Court
considers it profitable to refer to the decision in Union
of India Vrs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023)
SCC OnLine SC 346, wherein the Apex Court while
setting aside the order granting bail to the accused
therein has inter-alia observed the following facts in
paragraphs-9 & 11, which reads as under:-
"9. The driver of the vehicle Om Prakash
Yadav revealed that he was driving the
truck with the co-accused Amit Yadav as
helper of one Bittu Dada of Jamshedpur
and at the behest of Shri Ram Pravesh
Yadav, resident of Ballia, he had gone to
Jamshedpur where the acquaintance of
respondent-accused gave him the truck
which was loaded with ganja for safe
delivery in lieu of Rs.50,000/-. He further
informed that the respondent-accused
indulges in illicit trade of ganja.
11. The information revealed by the above
two accused persons indicated that both of
them knew the respondent-accused and
that they had connived with him to
transport the illicit ganja and that they
were in direct contact with the
respondent-accused all through on his
mobile number. The facts as unfurled from
the complaint/FIR and the statements of
the above two accused persons recorded
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act reveals
that respondent-accused is the kingpin
and the organiser of the illicit trade in
ganja."
5. In view of the discussion made hereinabove
and taking into consideration the materials placed on
record, this Court does not find any material to consider
that the petitioner has satisfied the conditions of
Section 37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant
of bail to an accused for commission of an offence
under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity.
6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands
disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately
transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the
matter for reference.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Subhasmita
Location: High Court of Orissa
