Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Orissa … Opposite Party on 27 April, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sk. Azad
(In BLAPL No.1344 of 2026)
Niranjan Pattajoshi @
Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu
(In BLAPL No.6378 of 2025) ... Petitioners
Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.1344 of 2026)
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.6378 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Orissa ... Opposite Party
Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Order No. ORDER(ORAL):27.04.2026 02. 1. These three bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by
the petitioners are for grant of bail in connection with Spl.
Crime Unit PS Case No.14 of 2023 corresponding to TR
Case No.576 of 2023 pending in the file of learned 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, for commission
of offences punishable U/Ss.21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, on the
main allegation of possessing 1Kg and 12Grams of Brown
Sugar.
2. Heard, Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, learned counsel
for the petitioner in BLAPL No.1344 of 2026; Mr. Sanjit
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL
No.6378 of 2025 and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor in these matters and perused the record.
3. In addition to long delay in trial, Mr. Manas Kumar
Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL
No.1344 of 2026, however, submits that the petitioner was
neither found in conscious possession of Contraband article
nor was he found involved in other case of similar nature,
Page 1 of 3
but the petitioner being allegedly involved in an another
case which is for offence U/S. 21(b) of NDPS Act, the same
would not create a bar as required U/S.37 of NDPS Act for
granting bail to him. Mr. Sanjit Mishra, learned counsel for
the petitioner in BLAPL No.6378 of 2025 also seeks for
grant of bail to the petitioner for non-conclusion of trial,
even after two and half years of his custody,
4. Apropos the submission as advanced for the
petitioner, it is to be emphasized that law is fairly well
settled in a very recent decision of the Apex Court in State
of Punjab Vrs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora; 2026
LiveLaw (SC) 421, wherein it has been held that the
right to speedy trial will not displace the conditions of
Section 37 of NDPS Act. Besides, it is also not disputed
about the alleged involvement of the petitioner-Sk. Azad in
STF PS, CID CB BBSR Case No.12 of 2019 for offences
U/Ss.307/506/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sections 21(b)/29 of
NDPS Act and Sections 25(1-AA)/27 of Arms Act.
5. Grant or refusal of bail for commission of offences
under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is governed
by Section 37 of NDPS Act, which prescribes that no
person accused of an offence under NDPS Act involving
commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where the
public prosecutor opposes such bail application of the
accused; unless the Court is satisfied that (i) there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of such offence and (ii) he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail. In this case, the petitioner-
Niranjan Pattajoshi @ Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu has
allegedly been found in possession of 500Grams of Brown
Page 2 of 3
Sugar and similarly, the allegation against the petitioner-
Sk. Azad for assisting the co-accused to possess
commercial quantity of Contraband article. In the aforesaid
facts and situation, especially the quantity allegedly seized
in this case being much more than the commercial
quantity and the petitioner-Sk. Azad being found involved
in another case under NDPS Act and the petitioner-
Niranjan Pattajoshi @ Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu being
allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity of
Contraband article and taking into account the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Union of India Vrs. Ajay
Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346,
this Court hardly finds the petitioners to have satisfied the
conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua
non for grant of bail to an accused for commission of an
offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity.
6. Hence, these two bail applications of the
petitioners namely Sk. Azad (In BLAPL No.1344 of 2026)
and Niranjan Pattajoshi @ Niranjan Pattjoshi @ Kamu (In
BLAPL No.6378 of 2025) stand rejected. Accordingly, these
BLAPLs stand disposed of.
7. In view of the alternative oral prayer as advanced
for the petitioner, trial be expedited, if there is no other
legal impediment. A copy of this order be immediately
transmitted to the learned trial Court for reference.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Subhasmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 29-Apr-2026 11:18:27
Page 3 of 3