The court determined that the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for granting bail in cases related to commercial quantities of drugs, emphasizing the significance of previous involvement in similar offences.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Kantabanji PS Case No.288 of 2024 corresponding to Spl. GR Case No.22 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kantabanji for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of financing illicit trade of Contraband Ganja and facilitating transportation 94Kgs of Contraband Ganja through co-accused persons by providing his bolero vehicle.

2. Heard, Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Sr. counsel who enters appearance along with Mr. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today by filing appearance memo, which is taken on record and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.

3. It is undoubtedly advanced for the petitioner that the implication of the petitioner is only on the basis of confession of co-accused, which is inadmissible in the eye of law, but the petitioner has in fact not only being forwarded in this case, but also he is allegedly involved in another two cases of similar nature vide Titilagarh PS Case No.289 of 2024 for commission of offences U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and Bangamunda PS Case No.207 of 2024 U/S.20(b)(ii)(B)/29 of NDPS Act. Grant or refusal of bail 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 the bail application of such accused person, unless the Court satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence(s) and he is not likely to commit offence while on bail. In this case, the alleged involvement of the petitioner in other two cases of similar nature is itself an impediment to satisfy the Conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act that he is unlikely to commit offence while on bail. Further, the name of the petitioner finds place in the FIR and the FIR and the charge-sheet allegedly incriminates the petitioner in this case. Additionally, in Union of India Vrs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu ; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, the Apex Court in paragraph No.9 & 11 has observed 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 organizer of the illicit trade in ganja.”

4. It is undoubtedly advanced by learned Sr. counsel that co-accused has been granted bail in this case, who stands on similar footing, but a reference to the order as produced for grant of bail to co-accused does not disclose about discussion of Sec.37 of NDPS Act which is held to be sine qua non for grant of bail for offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity. 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