IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL NO.6041 of 2025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of

BNSS, 2023).

Gunjan Mahadeo Adsul … Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Biswal, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:23.09.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Mohana PS Case No.106 of 2023 corresponding to GR Case No.70 of 2023 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Parlakhemundi, Dist-Gajapati, for commission of offences punishable U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the allegation of transporting 1773Kgs 200Grams of Contraband Ganja

in a Truck bearing Regd. No.MH-50-N-0299.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Amit Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the written notes of submission filed for the petitioner submits that there is total non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act and, thereby, the prosecution against the petitioner being vitiated, he may kindly be granted bail.

2.1. On the other hand, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner submits that compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is not applicable to this case in hand as the Contraband articles were found recovered from the vehicle, but not from the personal search and Section 42 of NDPS Act although mandatory should not be allowed to misuse the provision to protect the drug peddlers like the petitioner, who is prima facie found to have transported such a huge quantity of Contraband Ganja and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohanty prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for transporting 1773Kgs 200Grams of Contraband Ganja in a Truck, but fact remains as to whether there was total non- compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act, however, such compliances of the provision of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act are question of facts and can be gone into in the trial after full-fledged evidence is being led. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision of the Apex Court in Karnail Singh Vrs. State of Haryana; (2009) 8 SCC 539 wherein while answering a reference as to whether compliance of Section 42 is mandatory or not and substantial compliance is sufficient; a five Judges Bench of the Apex Court recorded its conclusion in Paragraph-35 and the relevant observation as stated therein at Paragraph

35 (d), is extracted as under:-

“(d). While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendme