SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G. Satapathy, J.
Aryaman Pattnayak - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Opposite Party
BLAPL No. 10495 of 2025
Decided On : 09-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. S. Pattnaik, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. J. Panda, CGC

Statutory provisions under the NDPS Act and Article 22(2) impose no violation in the case presented; bail denied as conditions under Section 37 not satisfied due to possession of commercial quantity.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23, 25, 29, and 37 - Constitutional provisions - Article 22(2) - Bail application for alleged possession of narcotics - Petitioner argued illegal detention for not being produced within 24 hours of arrest - Court found no violation of Article 22(2) and upheld prior rulings stating detention was lawful under NDPS provisions. (Paras 1, 5, 8)

(B) Arrest and Custody - Definition - Not synonymous with physical confinement - Mere entry for search does not equate to arrest; custody starts upon formal arrest. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing commercial quantities of LSD after a search of his dwelling revealed contraband. The search was conducted by Narcotic Control Bureau officials following information received about illegal possession. Petitioner contended irregularities in detention and legality of arrest timing.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the petitioner was not illegally detained as per statutory requirements and reaffirmed the legal interpretations surrounding arrest and custody without warrant under the NDPS Act.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was illegally detained beyond 24 hours and whether conditions under Section 37 of NDPS were satisfied for grant of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court maintained that statutory obligations were met concerning detention timing, asserting that detention during the search did not amount to arrest and that legally established custody was upheld.

Result: Bail application rejected.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case and seizure details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's claims on illegal detention. (Para 3)
3. arguments for and against bail application. (Para 4)
4. court's perspective on arrest and custody timelines. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
5. conditions for bail under ndps act not met. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with NCB, Bhubaneswar Crime No. 04 of 2025 corresponding to Special T.R Case No.378 of 2025 pending in the file of learned District & Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 8(c) read with Sec. 21(c)/23/25/29 of NDPS Act.

2. The factual matrix as unfurled is that acting on a specific information received from the Office of Narcotic Control Bureau, Delhi Zonal Unit regarding the petitioner possessing Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance in his dwelling house at Block- B-1, Flat No. 105, New Jeevan Bima Nagar, Maitri Vihar, Bhubaneswar on 22.07.2025, the information was reduced into writing and submitted to superior officer and the authority concerned by procuring two independent witnesses from the locality i.e. from the apartment area of the petitioner reached to the specific flat of the petitioner at around 1.30PM in the afternoon on the same day i.e. 22.07.2025 and after observing necessary procedure, conducted search in the said house of the petitioner and recovered 06 blots of Lysergide (in short, “LSD”), 08 number of blank blots having written LSD 25 250ugl wrapped in silver foil and hidden in a book and 05 numbers of black colour nozzle spray containing liquid LSD kept in a black-colour box. Accordingly, the aforesaid items were seized by the NCB officials and the 06 blots of LDS were on being weighed came to be 0.110gm(110mg), the 08 blank blots on being weighed came to 0.140gm. (140mg) and lastly, the liquid LSD(spray) on being weighed came to 23.360gram. The search, seizure and recovery was completed at 16.50hours (4.50PM) on the same day, but subsequently, the petitioner was shown to be arrested at 23.30hours (11.30PM) at NCB Office, Bhubaneswsar which is found from the memorandum of arrest for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 21(c)/23/25/29 of NDPS Act in violation of Sec. 8(c) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was accordingly produced before the Special Court on the next day and his bail application having been rejected by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Khurda, the petitioner is before this Court in this bail application.

3. It needs to be stated here that the petitioner has also approached the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar for releasing him from the judicial custody forthwith for illegal detention in custody being produced before the Special Court beyond 24hours in violation of the provision of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 58 of BNSS (Section 57 of CrPC), but the same having been rejected, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision No. 1010 of 2025 which was disposed of by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.12.2025 dismissing the revision by holding no infraction of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 57 of CrPC. The petitioner is, however, again testing the same legal point in this bail application together with grant of bail to him on merit.

4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Ms. Shreya Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is clear cut infraction of the statutory and mandatory provision of law and the petitioner is thereby entitled to be released on bail for non-compliance of the provision of Section 58 of BNSS read with Article 22(2) of Constitution of India. Mr. Dhal submits that since the petitioner’s house was raided at 1.30 PM in the afternoon, the custody of the petitioner would start on & from 1.30 PM itself as the petitioner’s movement wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top