IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.13059 of 2024 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

Dinesh Biswas @ Dinesh … Petitioner Kumar -versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:24.04.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Umerkote P.S. Case No.212 of 2020 corresponding to Special T.R. Case No.32 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Umerkote in the district of Nabarangpur for commission of offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing

105Kgs 676Grams of Contraband Ganja.

3. Heard, Mr. Pranay Kumar Maharaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

4. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the present Petitioner has been implicated in following three cases of similar nature:

(i)Umerkote PS Case Nos.209 of 2020 for offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act.

(ii) 8 of 2021 for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

(iii) 82 of 2021 for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act.

Grant or refusal of bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity is governed by Section 37 of NDPS Act and 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act prescribes that no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under sec. 19 or Sec.24 or Sec. 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where such public prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is unlikely to commit offence while on bail. True it is that in some of the cases, the Petitioner has already been granted bail, but the involvement of the petitioner in three other similar cases gives rise to reason or apprehension in the mind of the Court to consider that there is no ground to believe that the accused is unlikely to commit offence while on bail. In addition, there is allegation against the petitioner for possessing commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja and the trial is going on with examination of 19 out of 30 charge sheeted witnesses and the trial is likely to be concluded soon.

5. Adverting to the plea of petitioner for grant of bail on the principle of parity, this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision in Satpal Singh vrs. State of Punjab; (2018) 13 SCC 813, wherein the pre-arrest bail application of one accused namely Satpal Singh was turned down by one of the Bench of High Court, whereas the pre-arrest bail application of co-accused Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh had been allowed by another Bench of the said High Court, but after noticing the provision of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, the Apex Court while upholding the view of the learned Judge declining to give protection to accused Satpal Singh for not recording satisfaction of the conditions U/S. 37 of NDPS Act cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court to co-accused Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh for not recording satisfaction of the conditions U/S. 37 of the NDPS Act which is sine qua non for granting bail to the accused for offences involving commercial quantity. It is, therefore, very clear from the precedent as laid down by Apex Court that the order granting bail must demonstrate the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, but if the order granting bail to co-accused does not discuss/ demonstrate about the satisfaction of the conditions of Section