G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Bhubaneswar STF P.S. Case No.14 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.133 of 2020 pending in the file of 3rd learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing 405 Grams of Brown Sugar, along with co-accused persons.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Satya Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner although has right to speedy trial, but the same not only has been infringed in view of his detention in custody since 12.07.2022, but also only 04 out of 24 charge sheeted witnesses have been examined till today and thereby, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Vaibhav Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 439 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vrs. State (NCT of Delhi); (2023) SCC OnLine SC 352. On this submission, Mr. Mohapatra prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

2.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. PP by harping on the criminal antecedents of the petitioner submits that not only the petitioner has failed to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, but also he being involved in number of cases, his bail application may kindly be rejected.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for possessing 405Grams of Brown Sugar along with co-accused persons, but the aforesaid quantity of Brown Sugar is definitely coming under commercial quantity. Besides, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:-

(a) Jaleswar P.S.Case No.53(A) of 2010, U/s.21(b) of NDPS Act, corresponding to Spl.G.R.Case No.53 (A) of 2020, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore.

(b) Jaleswar P.S.Case No.276 of 2021, U/S.21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act corresponding to Spl.G.R.Case No.210 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore.

(c) Jaleswar P.S.Case No.279 of 2021, U/s.21(c) of NDPS Act, corresponding to Spl.G.R. Case No.218 of 2021, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore.

(d) Jaleswar P.S. Case No.300 of 2021, U/s.21(b) and 29 of NDPS Act, corresponding to Spl.G.R. Case No. 240 of 2021, pending before the court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore.

(e) Jaleswar P.S. Case No.307 of 2021, U/s.21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act, corresponding to Special G.R.Case No. 245 of 2021, pending in the court of learned District Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore.

(f) Talasar P.S.Case No.01 of 2011, U/s.21(b) of NDPS Act, corresponding to Spl.G.R. Case No. 07 of 2021, pending in the court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Balasore.

What is most significant is that, although the petitioner knows about his criminal antecedent, but he has never disclosed his criminal antecedents in his bail application and the knowledge of the petitioner is attributable from the comprehensive affidavit filed by him in his earlier bail application in BLAPL No. 10025 of 2024.

In this regard, this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan; 2025 INSC 871, the Apex Court in paragraphs-22 and 23 has inter-alia held as under:-

“22. Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as below:

“5. Bail applications. - In every application for bail presented to the High Court the