p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2371 of 2025 Bigyananda Naik @ Nayak & Anr. …. Petitioner (s) Represented By Adv. Mr. Jugala Kishore Panda -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satapathy, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 24.04.2025 F.I.R ./P.R . No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Section 187 27.01.2025 Digapahandi 2(a)CC Case No.5 of 2025(N) arising out of OIC of Excise, Digapahandi Excise Station, P.R. Case No.187/2024-25 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act p. 2 p. 2 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner is being in custody in connection with 2(a)C.C. Case No.5 of 2025(N) arising out of OIC of Excise, Digapahandi Excise Station, P.R. Case No.187/2024-25 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 27.01.2025 at about 1.30 A.M., while the OIC of Excise, Digapahandi, Excise Station along with his staff were performing patrolling duty at Panjakiya, at that time they noticed that one yellow colour Bajaj Maxima Auto bearing Registration No.OD-07-AS-3629 was coming from the side of Panjakiya with a very high speed. On suspicion, they have detained the said auto. After interrogation, they have disclosed their name and address. After observing all the formalities of search and seizure as enshrined in the NDPS Act 26.5 kgs of contraband ganja was seized. p. 3 p. 3 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had no knowledge regarding transportation of contraband ‘ganja’. The Petitioner is in custody since 27.01.2025. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that the quantity of ganja seized is clearly above the commercial quantity prescribed under the N.D.P.S Act, which debars the Petitioner from getting bail. 7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court finds that the ganja seized from the possession of the present Petitioner does not come within the purview of commercial quantity. At this juncture, looking to the provision under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court finds that there is a bar for release of the present Petitioner. 8. This Court, therefore, declines to entertain the prayer of the present Petitioner. 9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being dismissed. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Sumitra