p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Pinku @ Gobind Chandra Nayak (In BLAPL No. 11645 of 2025) P. Mohan (In BLAPL No. 94 of 2026) … Petitioners Mr. R.K. Patnaik, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 11645 of 2025) Mr. G. Mishra, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 94 of 2026) -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 02.02.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. These are applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Aska P.S. Case No.347 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.10 of 2025 (NDPS) pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Aska, Ganjam, for p. 2 commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 417Kgs 780Grams of Contraband Ganja in a Bolero Pick-up vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-07AR-4286. 4. Heard, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 11645 of 2025, Mr. Gopinath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 94 of 2026 and Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP in these matters and perused the record. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner Pinku @ Gobind Chandra Nayak for assisting the petitioner P.Mohan to transfer 417Kgs 780Grams of Contraband Ganja, which is well above the commercial quantity, but it is submitted for the petitioner-Pinku @ Gobind Chandra Nayak that he has no nexus with the transportation of Contraband Ganja, but fact remains that the statement of co-accused U/S.67 of NDPS Act reveals that the petitioner had supplied the Contraband article to petitioner P.Mohan. Similarly, the petitioner P. Mohan was also allegedly found to be driving the vehicle, in which p. 3 the Contraband article was being transported. In this context, this Court feels it proper to reiterate the principle laid down in Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, wherein the Apex Court set aside the order granting bail to the respondent therein after taking note of the following facts at paragraph-9 & 11 which reads 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, resident of Ballia, he had gone to Jamshedpur where the acquaintance of respondent-accused gave him the 5 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 organiser of the illicit trade in ganja.” p. 4 6. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-à- vis the accusations sought to be brought against them and regard being had to 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 under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to either of the petitioners. 7. Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Pinku @ Gobind Chandra Nayak (BLAPL No.11645 of 2025) & P. Mohan (BLAPL No.94 of 2026) stand rejected. 8. Accordingly, these two BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Court for reference. (G. Satapathy) Judge S.Sasmal Designation: Jr. Stenographer