Orissa High Court
Santosh @ Gania @ Ganeswar vs State Of Odisha on 27 July, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3971 of 2026
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS).
Santosh @ Gania @ Ganeswar ... Petitioner
Behera
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:27.07.2026 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by
the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
Golanthara PS Case No.403 of 2023 corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 61 of 2023(N) (Part File) pending in the
file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Berhampur, for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, on the main
allegation of transporting 1108.510 Kgs of Contraband
BLAPL No.3971 of 2026
Page 1 of 9
Ganja in an Eicher truck bearing Regd. No.OD-02-AT-
5945 by entering into conspiracy with each other.
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Himanshu
Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that without establishing the identity of the
petitioner, he has been arrested after two years of the
occurrence by showing his alias name and when
preliminary charge-sheet was placed against co-
accused persons, the name of the petitioner was never
whispered, but the petitioner was arrayed as an
accused after two years of the occurrence in the final
charge-sheet and he was subsequently arrested in this
case and therefore, the petitioner being not found with
contraband article, he is as such entitled to bail on
merit. Mr. Mishra, further submits that the petitioner is
alternatively entitled to bail for non-compliance of
Sec.47 of BNSS because no grounds of arrest has been
furnished to the petitioner. On the aforesaid
submission, Mr. Mishra prays to grant bail to the
petitioner.
BLAPL No.3971 of 2026
Page 2 of 9
2.1. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned
Addl. PP; by placing the statement of the witnesses
submits that not only the petitioner is involved on
prima facie materials, but the petitioner himself has
shown in the description of cause title to be the said
person and it is absolutely premature to say that the
petitioner is not the said person who was allegedly
transporting the contraband article. Mr. Patra further
submits that the non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS as
claimed has been duly complied with and the said
provision for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing
being applied prospectively to the arrest, the
petitioner’s claim merits no consideration since he was
arrested much before the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of
Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500. Accordingly, Mr.
Patra prays to reject the bail application of the
petitioner for not being able to satisfy the conditions of
Sec.37 of NDPS Act.
BLAPL No. 3971 of 2026
Page 3 of 9
3. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against
the petitioner for transporting 1108.510Kgs of
contraband ganja, which is admittedly much more than
commercial quantity, in a truck, but much emphasize
has been given towards the identity of the petitioner,
however, the identity of the petitioner at this stage
cannot be decided by this Court in a bail application,
unless there is sterling material to suggest that the
petitioner is not the said person who was allegedly
driving/found in the said truck. In this case, the FIR has
allegedly been registered against one Santosh and
others, but the final charge-sheet submitted in this
case reveals the name of the petitioner as Santosh @
Gania @ Ganeswar Behera S/o-Dasarathi Behera, but
the petitioner himself described in the cause title of the
bail application as the Son of Dasarathi Behera with
same address.
4. Be that as it may, grant or refusal of bail for
commission of offence under NDPS Act involving
BLAPL No.3971 of 2026
Page 4 of 9
commercial quantity is governed by Sec.37 of NDPS
Act, which prescribes that no person accused of offence
under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity shall be
released on bail; where the public prosecutor opposes
such bail application, unless the Court is satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence and he is unlikely to
commit offence while on bail. It, however, appears from
the record that the petitioner appears to have managed
to avoid the process of law for around two years and
the copy of charge-sheet, FIR and the statement of the
witnesses implicate the petitioner for transporting huge
quantity of contraband ganja. In the context of present
case, this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision
in Union of India Vrs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu;
(2023) SCC Online SC 346, wherein at paragraph no.
9 & 11 the Apex Court has held as under: –
“9. The driver of the vehicle Om Prakash
Yadav revealed that he was driving the truck
with the co-accused Amit Yadav as helper of
one Bittu Dada of Jamshedpur and at the
behest of Shri Ram Pravesh Yadav, residentBLAPL No. 3971 of 2026
Page 5 of 9
of Ballia, he had gone to Jamshedpur where
the acquaintance of respondent-accused gave
him the truck which was loaded with ganja
for safe delivery in lieu of Rs.50,000/-. He
further informed that the respondent-accused
indulges in illicit trade of ganja.
11. The information revealed by the above
two accused persons indicated that both of
them knew the respondent-accused and that
they had connived with him to transport the
illicit ganja and that they were in direct
contact with the respondent-accused all
through on his mobile number. The facts as
unfurled from the complaint/FIR and the
statements of the above two accused
persons recorded under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act reveals that respondent-
accused is the kingpin and the organizer
of the illicit trade in ganja.”
5. Even otherwise, coming to the plea of the
petitioner for non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS, it
appears that the petitioner was arrested on 05.09.2025
and his arrest memo discloses the offences allegedly
committed by him and the reason and grounds of arrest
described therein to be for his involvement in the case.
It is no more res integra that the non-communication of
grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee in the
language he understands applies prospectively to the
arrest of the arrestee on and from the date of
BLAPL No.3971 of 2026
Page 6 of 9
pronouncement of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah
(supra) which was delivered on 06.11.2015 and the
relevant observation as made therein is extracted
hereinunder: –
68. We are cognizant that there existed no
consistent or binding requirement
mandating written communication of the
grounds of arrest for all the offences.
Holding as above, in our view, would ensure
implementation of the constitutional rights
provided to an arrestee as engrafted under
Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an
effective manner. Such clarity on obligation
would avoid uncertainty in the administration
of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and
legal discipline therefore demand that this
procedure as affirmed above shall
govern arrests “henceforth”.
5.1. In the context of prospective application of the
furnishing grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing,
this Court considers it apt to refer to the very recent
decision in State of Meghalaya Vrs. Sonam
Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu; SLP (Crl.) No.11944
of 2026 disposed of on 23.07.2026, wherein the
Apex Court in paragraph-9 has held as under:-
“9. Law is quite settled that serving of the
grounds of arrest is mandatory. This has beenBLAPL No. 3971 of 2026
Page 7 of 9
introduced as a Judge made law vide a
judgment of this Court in the case of Mihir
Rajesh Shah (supra). That is the precise
reason why this Court was pleased to hold that
though such a procedure is not contemplated,
nonetheless, it is so required in order to give
effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India. For the said reason, the decision
was made to apply prospectively.
Admittedly, in the case on hand, the
respondent was arrested on 09.06.2025 much
before the date of pronouncement of Mihir
Rajesh Shah (supra).”
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, since the petitioner was arrested on
25.09.2025, which is much before the date of
pronouncement of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and no
prejudice having been admittedly shown by the
petitioner, this Court finds the plea of the petitioner for
non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS to be unmerited and
liable to be rejected. In view of the discussion made
hereinabove and on conspectus of the materials placed
on record and the petitioner having not found to have
not satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act,
which is sine qua non for grant of bail for commission of
BLAPL No.3971 of 2026
Page 8 of 9
offence under NDPS Act, the present bail application
merits no consideration and liable to be rejected.
7. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands
disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately
transmitted to the concerned Court for compliance.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 27th Day of July, of 2026/ Jayakrushna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 27-Jul-2026 20:22:25
BLAPL No. 3971 of 2026
Page 9 of 9
