IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL NO.10498 of 2025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of

BNSS, 2023).

Nakul @ Sushanta Gharami … Petitioner

-versus-

State of Orissa … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Ms. M. Mohanty, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:27.11.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS Act by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Special GR Case No. 77 of 2022 arising out of Motu PS Case No.45 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 370Kgs and 800 Grams of Contraband

Ganja.

2. In the course of hearing, Ms. Monalisha Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that co-accused Bipul Gharami standing on graver footing has already been granted bail, but the Petitioner having detained in custody for sufficient period, may kindly be admitted to bail by extending the principle of parity.

2.1. On the contrary, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the Petitioner by contending inter-alia that since the quantity of Contraband Ganja recovered in this case being well above the commercial quantity, the Petitioner cannot be said to have satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act and, therefore, the bail application of the Petitioner may kindly be rejected. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears not only allegation against the Petitioner for transporting 370Kgs and 800 Grams of Contraband Ganja, but also he has been named in the FIR. The quantity of Contraband Ganja seized in this case is definitely coming under commercial quantity and thereby, the Petitioner has to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act for grant of bail to him. No doubt, co-accused has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but the order granting bail does not discuss about the accused therein satisfying the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act and thereby, parity cannot be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of right. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision of the Apex Court 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 an accused for offences involving commercial quantity. The relevant observation of Apex Court in Satpal Singh (supra), in Paragraph-14 is extracted as under:-

“14. xx xx. The quantity is reportedly commercial. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the High Court could not have and should not have passed the order U/S.438 or 439 of CrPC without reference to Sec.37 of NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise inclined to grant bail. Such a satisfaction having not been entered, the order dated 21.09.2007 (granting pre- arrest bail to accused person) is only to be set aside and we do so.”

4. It is, therefore, very clear from the precedent as laid down by the Apex Court in Satpal Singh (supra) that an order granting bail must demonstrate the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, but if the order granting bail to c