ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner being in custody in Special Case No.116 of 2012, arising out of NALCO P.S. Case No.183 of 2012, pending in the court of the learned Judge, Special Court, Angul, has filed this petition for his release on bail. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act").

3. It appears from the materials available on record that the petitioner along with four others said to be transporting 86 Kgs. 150 grams of 'Ganja' in two motor cars, i.e., one Indigo car and one Indica car to dispose of the same in Cuttack town. On their way, NALCO Chhak Main Gate, Seeing the police partrolling party, the present petitioner and others fled away from the spot and the driver of Indigo car and an occupant of the Indica car were apprehended. The police patrolling party recovered 'Ganja' of 86 Kgs. 150 grams from both the vehicles. The petitioner was arrested during course of investigation of the aforesaid case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing notice of this Court to the materials available on record; so also Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act, submits that in this case the only material that is available against the petitioner being confession of co-accused before the Police naming the petitioner to be one of the persons, which is no evidence in the eye of law, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. He further submits that even if prima-facie case is there indicating the involvement of the petitioner, the petitioner also deserves to be released on bail, inasmuch as there is nothing on record indicating the fact that he shall commit any offence on his release on bail as he has no criminal antecedents and unless the twins conditions are satisfied, an accused is entitled to be released on bail, is the mandate of Section 37(b) of the NDPS Act. He further submits that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity inasmuch as this Court had already released two co-accused persons, namely, Rinku Sahu and Ranjan Kumar Pradhan on bail vide orders dated 08.04.2013 and 19.06.2013 respectively passed in BLAPL Nos.743 of 2013 and 602 of 2013. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Abhaya Parichha vrs. State of Orissa, 2015 (Supp.-II) OLR 169 wherein it has been held as follows :-

"xxxxx xxxxxxx

Bail-Commercial quantity of Ganja found from the exclusive and conscious possession of the co-accused - Petitioner was charge sheeted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act -Impleaded in the case only on the confessional statement of the co-accused - No criminal antecedent - Considering the nature of accusation and absence of prima facie materials against the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence and taking into account of his period of detention in judicial custody, bail, of the petitioner allowed.

Xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx" [Quoted from Placitum]

So also, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Sub Zone, Kakkanad, Kochi Vrs. Lijo K.Jose, 2016 CRI.L.J. 594, wherein in paragraph-14 it has been held as follows:-

"14. Even though Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act says that, the aforesaid two grounds arise for consideration only when the Prosecutor opposes the application, I am of the firm view that in appropriate cases, the said two grounds arise even when the Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. The same is evident from Section 37(2) of the NDPS Act. As per Section 37(2) of the NDPS Act, the limitations contained in Section 37(1)(b) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, even when the Prosecutor does not oppose the petition,