Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2000
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Gourishankar Satapathy, J
Munna Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India(NCB) – Respondent
Bail Application|BLAPL No.3696 of 2025|NCB Crime Case No. 08/NCB/BBSR/2021|GR(Spl.) Case No.24 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A. Gupta
For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Parhi, Mr. S. Panda
The court determined that failure to cooperate in trial proceedings precluded the granting of bail under the NDPS Act.
Headnote:In this bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS Act, the petitioner sought bail in NCB Crime Case No. 08/NCB/BBSR/2021 concerning the transportation of 520 Kgs of contraband ganja. The court noted that the petitioner failed to cooperate with trial proceedings and could not satisfy the conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The main issue framed involved the applicant's eligibility for bail, leading to the conclusion that the delay in proceedings did not warrant bail, considering the lack of cooperation. Ultimately, the bail application was rejected due to these factors.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the ruling regarding bail eligibility (Para 5) |
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 0 6.08.2025
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with NCB Crime Case No. 08/NCB/BBSR/2021 corresponding to GR(Spl.) Case No.24 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/28 of the NDPS Act , on the allegation of transporting 520 Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a Tata 10 wheeler container bearing Registration No. HR-38U-
9546.
3. Heard, Mr. Anish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing virtually and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned CGC in the matter and perused the record.
4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the Petitioner for transporting such a huge quantity of Contraband Ganja, but on the report being called for to address the plea of delay in disposal of the case, the learned trial Court in its report dated 04.07.2025 has inter-alia stated the following:-
“(i) Out of seven prosecution witnesses, one independent witness and two official witnesses have already been examined.
(ii) As the learned counsel for the accused (UTP) remained absent on 08.04.2025 and 01.07.2025 and on being asked, the UTP did not agree to take assistance of any SDC or Legal Aid Counsel, the cross examination of the witness Nos. 2 and 3 are dispensed with as per clause (c) of 4th Proviso to Sec. 309(2)
of the CrPC .
(iii) Now the record is posted to 19.07.2025 for evidence.
(iv) Probable time required for disposal of the case is approximately four months.”
In the aforesaid backdrop, especially the above facts being not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it seems that the Petitioner is not cooperating with the trial. On the other hand, grant or refusal of bail is governed by Sec. 37 of NDPS Act , but in this case, the allegation on record together with the materials placed on record reveal that the Petitioner is unable to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act .
The sole ground under which the Petitioner seeks to renew his prayer for bail is delay in disposal of the case, but when it appears to the Court that the Petitioner is not cooperating in the trial as per the report submitted by the learned trial Court, such delay would become inconsequential.
5. In view of the above facts, more particularly the failure of the Petitioner to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act and his non-cooperation in trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.
