The legal principle established is that adherence to procedural safeguards during arrest is essential, but failure to satisfy conditions mandated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act prevents bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

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 STF, CID, CB, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 14 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Special Judge, Sonepur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 295 Kgs 55 Grams of Contraband Ganja in a Creta car bearing Regd. No. OD-17-L-0074.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Biraja Prasad Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Shyam Sundar Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner raises following few points for consideration of bail petition of the petitioner:-

(i) the petitioner was not found in exclusive possession of Contraband article;

(ii) the petitioner was produced before the Court beyond 24 hours in gross violation of Sec.58 of BNSS /57 CrPC and lastly;

(iii) the grounds of arrest was not communicated to the petitioner in violation of Sec.47 of BNSS /50 CrPC.

3. On the other hand, Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. PP while refuting such submission contends that not only the petitioner was found in exclusive possession of any Contraband article, but also he was duly communicated with the grounds of his arrest and he having been met with an accident, he was initially admitted to the hospital with intimation to the Court and thereby, his remand to the custody is deemed to have taken place with prior permission of the Court and there is no question of violation of Sec.47 & 58 of BNSS by the arresting officer who has duly complied the mandatory provisions of law. Further, Mr. Acharya submits that since the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, his bail application may kindly be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears not only allegation against the petitioner for transporting 295.55Kgs of Contraband Ganja which is well above the commercial quantity in the vehicle, but also the Investigating Agency collected materials in the form of CDR and SDR analysis about the petitioner remaining present at the spot, however, on a careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record, since the quantity of Contraband Ganja allegedly recovered with allegation of nexus of the petitioner with such transportation of Contraband article, the further scrutiny that is required is as to whether the petitioner is required to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act in this case at hand.

Before dwelling upon such question on merit, this Court considers it proper to address the submission as advanced by Mr. Tripathy and moving to the challenge of the petitioner for not producing him in the Court within 24 hours, it appears from the certified copy of the order sheet of the concerned Court as produced that the Arresting Officer after detaining the present petitioner on 25.03.2025 at about 9.40P.M. has intimated the Court for taking the petitioner to hospital for his treatment, which was duly acknowledged by the learned Special Judge, Sonepur in-charge and thereby, it can be automatically considered that the Special Judge, Sonepur has permitted the Investigating Agency to get the petitioner treated at the hospital, inasmuch as treatment for the detainee-petitioner was necessary and most important at that time, otherwise there might be risk for life to the detainee-petitioner. It further found from the record that the detainee-petitioner after being treated at hospital was produced in the Court on 01.04.2025 and was remanded to custody, but at the time of production, the deta