IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.12975 of 2025 Raddy Amal Raj @ Akhil @ R. Amal Raj … Petitioner Mr. D. Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 27.04.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Rayagada PS Case No.85 of 2025 corresponding to TR Case No.11 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Rayagada for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/ 25/ 27/29 of the NDPS Act r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act, on the main allegation of possessing net weight of 657 Kgs of Contraband Ganja and one automatic pistol with magazine having two numbers of live ammunitions in a white color bolero pick up van bearing Registration No.OR-18-B-0759, along with co-accused persons. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was in fact an occupant of Hyundai i20 Asta Car bearing Registration No. OD-02-AT-1365, but he has no nexus with the Bolero vehicle containing contraband article and, therefore, the Petitioner having no role in possession of Contraband article, but he having detained in custody since long, the Petitioner may kindly be admitted to bail on any condition. On these submissions, Mr. Panda prays to grant bail to the Petitioner. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. PP, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the Petitioner by contending inter-alia that since the Petitioner and others having been found in conscious possession of net weight of 657 Kgs of Contraband Ganja, which is well above the commercial quantity and the Petitioner having failed to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, his bail application may kindly be rejected. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties upon perusal of record, the name of the Petitioner is not only found in the FIR, but also there appears allegation against the Petitioner and five others for remaining present with the Bolero Pick up van bearing Registration No.OR-18-B-0759 and another Hyundai i20 Asta Car bearing Registration No. OD-02-AT-1365 at the relevant place of occurrence and on arrival of Police patrolling party there, all of the said persons including the Petitioner allegedly tried to flee away from the spot, but Police could manage to apprehend them by chasing, however, the net weight of 657 Kgs of Contraband Ganja was allegedly recovered from the Bolero pick up van and it would be premature to opine anything on merit in this case, however, there appears prima facie allegation against the Petitioner for not only possessing net quantity of 657 Kgs of Contraband Ganja, but also one automatic pistol with two round of live ammunitions in the Bolero vehicle and the quantity of Contraband Ganja is much more than the commercial quantity. 5. 5. Grant or refusal of bail for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving 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, if Public Prosecutor opposes such bail application; unless the Court is satisfied that (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and (ii) the accused is unlikely to commit offence while on bail. 6. On a careful conspectus of materials placed on record together with the recovery and seizure of net weight of 657 Kgs of Contraband Ganja, which is well above the commercial quantity from alleged possession of the Petitioner and others and the Petitioner having not able to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act on the face of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vrs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 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 learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Priyajit