IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No. 9286 of 2025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the

BNSS, 2023).

Abda Khatoon … Petitioner

-versus-

Union of India … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Sejpada, Advocate

on behalf of

Mr. A.K. Subudhi, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along

with Mr. S. Panda, CGC

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:24.09.2025 (ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is the 3^rd successive bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with VIII(48)1/Cus(P) Seizure of Marijuana(H.W)/ BPIA/2025 corresponding to TR Case No.13 of 2025 pending in the file of learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, being charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(B)/ 23/ 27(A)/ 28/ 29 of the NDPS Act,

on the allegation of possessing 9Kgs and 524 Grams of Contraband Hydroponic Weed (Marijuana/Ganja).

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. P.C. Sejpada, learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Akshaya Kumar Subudhi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to grant bail to the petitioner by extending the principle of parity, but Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned DSGI appearing along with Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned CGC submits that although complaint has been lodged against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii))(C) of NDPS Act with other offences, but the petitioner being forwarded to the Court for commission of aforesaid offences, the petitioner has to satisfy the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act and unless the petitioner satisfies such conditions, he should not be released on bail. Mr. Parhi further submits that there being possibility of charge being altered for commission of offence punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii))(C) of NDPS Act, the petitioner should not be granted bail, since he is unable to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. Mr. Parhi under aforesaid submission prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

3. In support of the submission as advanced by the learned DSGI, an affidavit stated to be sworn in by the Superintendent (SIIB), Customs (Prev.) Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar has been filed in which it is stated that the petitioner was found in possession of 4.016Kgs of Contraband article i.e. Hydroponic Weed (Marijuana/Ganja). It is specifically stated in such affidavit that Contraband Narcotic Drugs like Marijuana (Hydroponic Weed) is extremely potent and it contains higher percentage of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is at serial no.150 of the table of the schedule which refers to Sec. 2 (xxiiia) of NDPS Act, where small quantity is specified in the scheduled to be 2gm, whereas the commercial quantity is specified to be 50gms. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned trial Court in the impugned rejection order has stated that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in this case for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(B)/23/27(A)/28/29 of the NDPS Act and as per the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned trial Court, it reveals that the petitioner has been charged for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(B)/ 23/ 27(A)/ 28/ 29 of the NDPS Act, but such order has not yet been challenged by the Union of India to say that the petitioner is liable for commission of offence punishable U/S.

20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court considers that the rigors of Section 37 of NPDS Act would not be attracted in this case, since the order passed by the learned trial Court while framing charge has not yet been assailed by the Opposite Party-Union of India. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been detained in custody since 06.01.2025 and in the meantime, the co-accused Nasira Begum, who stands on similar footing, has already been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No.

7896 of 2025.

5. For the reasons stated hereinabove and taking into account the custody period of