Orissa High Court
Sushil Kumar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 27 April, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 2570 of 2026
Sushil Kumar Pradhan .... Petitioner
@ Sushil Ku. Pradhan
Mr. T.P. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
27.04.2026
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with
Spl. G.R Case No.77 of 2025, pending on the file of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge,
Malkangiri, arising out of Orkel P.S. Case No.153 of
2025 for commission of the alleged offence under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/27-A/29 of NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that
except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of
the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S.
case is pending in any other Court.
Page 1 of 4
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his
application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri by
order dated 27.02.2026 in the aforementioned case,
the present BLAPL has been filed.
5. This is the second journey of the Petitioner to
this Court. Petitioner has moved this Court in BLAPL
No.7133 of 2025 and this Court by order dated
08.01.2026 while not entertaining the bail application
of the Petitioner, had taken note of the very
contention, which is being raised, by the Petitioner in
the present bail application regarding the discrepancy
in the seizure.
For convenience of reference the relevant
paragraph of the earlier order is extracted hereunder;
“xxx xxx xxx
6. It is not out of place to mention, at the
time of consideration of bail application, the
procedure or formality relating to search and
seizure cannot be ascertained precisely, but
the same can be ascertained during trial after
evidence being led, however, prima facie
seizure of article can be looked into. On the
other hand, according to Sec.37 of NDPS Act,
no person accused of offence under NDPS Act
involving commercial quantity shall be
Page 2 of 4
released on bail, when Public Prosecutor
opposes the bail application of such accused
person; unless the Court satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence and he is
not likely to commit offence while on bail. In
this case, the quantity of Contraband Ganja
seized is 1190Kgs, but on going through the
materials placed on record, this Court hardly
finds the petitioners to have satisfied the
conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, which is
sine qua non for grant of bail to an accused of
NDPS Act involving commercial quantity. In
view of the above facts and taking into
consideration the quantity of Contraband
Ganja seized in this case and the failure of
the petitioners to satisfy the conditions of
Sec.37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined
to grant bail to the petitioners.
xxx xxx xxx”
6. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he
along with the co-accused were involved in
possession of contraband (Ganja) to the tune of
1190Kgs.
7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for bail.
8. Taking into account the nature of allegation
and the contraband being to the tune of 1190 kgs, in
Page 3 of 4
view of the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii), this
Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application
at this stage.
9. Learned Court in seisin is requested to
expedite the trial, since it is stated that the Petitioner
is in custody from 27.05.2025.
10. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Ayesha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 29-Apr-2026 20:07:51
Page 4 of 4
