Raja Nayakar vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 2271 Ori

Orissa High Court

Raja Nayakar vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 12 March, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                BLAPL NO.759 of 2026
   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of
   BNSS, 2023).
   Raja Nayakar                  ...         Petitioner
                          -versus-

   State of Odisha                   ...      Opposite Party

   For Petitioner           : Mr. S.N.Mishra-4, Advocate

   For Opposite Party       : Mr. P.Satapathy, Addl. PP

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:12.03.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS

by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with PR

No. 111 of 2025-26 of OIC, Excise Station, M.Rampur

corresponding to 2(a) CC Case No. 25 of 2025(NDPS)

pending in the file of learned Special Judge, Kalahandi,

for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)

of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing

146Kgs 960Grams of Contraband Ganja and trying to

transport it in a Maruti Suzuki car bearing Regd. No.

OD-02-BN-9881.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Satya

Narayan Mishra-4, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that there is clear cut infraction of compliance

of provision of Sec.47 of BNSS/ Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India and thereby, the petitioner is

entitled to bail on that score. Mr.Mishra further submits

that since the investigating agency has involved one

independent seizure witness for seizure of the

Contraband article, the seizure of article in this case is

vitiated and thereby, the petitioner is also entitled to

grant of bail.

2.1. On the other hand, Mr.P.Satapathy,

learned Addl. PP submits that after the decision of Apex

Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of

Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500, the communication

of grounds of arrest in writing has to be applied

prospectively to the arrest and the decision of Mihir

Rajesh Shah(supra) having rendered on 06.11.2025,

but the present one demonstrate a case much prior to

such decision and, therefore, the plea as advanced by

the petitioner for grant of bail for non-communication

of grounds of arrest in writing is of no avail to the

petitioner. Mr.Satapathy further submits that the

involvement of only one seizure witness has nothing to

do with the merit of the case, since the other official

seizure witnesses are also available to the case at hand

and thereby, the petitioner's bail application may kindly

be rejected, more particularly when he has failed to

satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act.

3. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, it undoubtedly

appears to the Court that the petitioner has set up the

plea for grant of bail for non-compliance of the

provision of Sec.47 of BNSS/ Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India, but law has been fairly well

settled in Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra), wherein the

Apex Court in Paragraph-68 has held as under:-

68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences.

Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an

effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth."

4. Applying the facts of the present case, it

appears that the present case was detected much prior

to 06.11.2025 when the judgment in Mihir Rajesh

Shah(supra) was rendered and thereby, the plea as

advanced by the petitioner for grant of bail for non-

compliance of provision of Sec.47 of BNSS/ Article

22(1) of the Constitution of India is not available to the

petitioner in the present case. Accordingly, such plea

merits no consideration.

5. On coming back to the next plank of

submission about non-involvement of two independent

seizure witnesses, it appears that the search and

seizure in NDPS case is either governed by Sec. 42 or

43 of NDPS Act where it is not mandated that search

and seizure must be associated with two independent

seizure witnesses and it is also not out of place to state

that how the raiding officers would get independent

witnesses, if the Contraband article would be detected

suddenly during the patrolling duty of such officers and

there would be no time to associate independent

seizure witnesses or associating independent seizure

witnesses would facilitate the offenders to escape with

Contraband article. Further, if the search and seizure

are vitiated for any ground, the same can be agitated

at the time of trial, but grant or refusal of bail for

commission of offences 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.

6. In the present case, on going through the

materials placed on record together with seizure of

commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja allegedly

from the possession of the petitioner, this Court hardly

finds the petitioner to have satisfied the conditions of

Sec. 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. Hence, the

plea of the petitioner for bail on account of non-

associating two independent seizure witnesses is found

unmerited.

7. In the result, the bail application of the

petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL

stands disposed of. Trial be expedited, if there is no

other legal impediment. A copy of this order be

immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin

over the matter.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th March, 2026/Kishore

Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Mar-2026 10:26:13