BLAPL Nos.9798 of 2025 & 1101 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.9798 of 2025 & 1101 of 2026 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS). Bhagirathi Meher @ Bhagarathi Meher (In BLAPL No. 9798 of 2025) Santosh Meher (In BLAPL No. 1101 of 2026) … Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioners : Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 9798 of 2025) Mr. B.R. Tripathy, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 1101 of 2026) For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:17.02.2026(ORAL ) G. Satapathy, J. 1. Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are taken up & heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. BLAPL Nos.9798 of 2025 & 1101 of 2026 2. These are two bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Padampur PS Case No.192 of 2023 corresponding to Special GR Case No.57-B of 2023 being charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Padampur, on the allegation of possessing 476 Kgs and 280 Grams of Contraband Ganja in the house of co-accused Chhuta @ Indrajit Meher along with co-accused persons. 3. Heard, Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No.9798 of 2025; Mr. Biswajit Ranjan Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 1101 of 2026 and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the Petitioners for possessing net weight of 476 Kgs and 280 Grams of Contraband Ganja in the newly constructed BLAPL Nos.9798 of 2025 & 1101 of 2026 house of co-accused accused Chhuta @ Indrajit Meher along with other co-accused persons and they are accordingly charge sheeted as absconders for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, but the paramount consideration in granting bail is securing the attendance of the accused at the trial, which consideration has been thwarted by the aforesaid conduct of the Petitioners for remaining as absconders. Besides, the quantity of Contraband article seized in this case is much more than the limit of commercial quantity of 20Kgs and the Petitioners, thereby, are required to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant of bail for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, but one of the stipulations as prescribed in Sec. 37 of NDPS Act is unlikelihood of commission of offence by the accused while on bail, however, the alleged involvement of the Petitioner-Bhagirathi Meher @ Bhagarathi Meher in Padampur PS Case No. 149 of 2014 is an impediment for recording satisfaction U/S. 37 of NDPS Act. Additionally, BLAPL Nos.9798 of 2025 & 1101 of 2026 the bail application of the Petitioner Santosh Meher was earlier rejected by this Court in BLAPL No. 6111 of 2025, but there is virtually no change in circumstance to consider this bail application afresh. 5. No doubt, the Petitioners set plea of parity for their release on bail, but they do not stand with similar footings with co-accused released on bail inasmuch as co- accused persons released on bail do not have any criminal antecedent and they have not been shown as absconders in the charge sheet. Besides, the orders granting bail to co-accused persons do not disclose about discussion the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant of bail for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, but on careful scrutiny of materials placed on record together with the discussion made hereinabove does not disclose the present Petitioners to have satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision in Satpal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab; BLAPL Nos.9798 of 2025 & 1101 of 2026 (2018) 13 SCC 813, wherein the pre-arrest bail application of one accused namely Satpal Singh was turned down by one of the Bench of High Court, whereas the pre-arrest bail application of co-accused Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh had been allowed by another Bench of the said High Court, but after noticing the provisions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, the Apex Court while upholding the view of the learned Judge declining to give protection to accused Satpal Singh for not recording satisfaction of the conditions U/S.37 of NDPS Act cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court to co-accused Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh for not recording satisfaction of the conditions U/S.37 of the NDPS Act which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused for offences involving commercial quantity. The relevant observation of Apex Court in Satpal Singh (supra) in Paragraph-14 is extracted as under:- “14. xx xx. The quantity is reportedly commercial. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the High Court could not have and should not have passed the order BLAPL Nos.9798 of 2025 & 1101 of 2026 U/S.438 or 439 of CrPC without reference to Sec.37 of NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise inclined to grant bail. Such a satisfaction having not been entered, the order dated 21.09.2007 (granting pre- arrest bail to accused person) is only to be set aside and we do so.” 6. In view of the discussions made hereinabove coupled with 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. Hence, the bail applications of these petitioners stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPL Nos. 9798 of 2025 & 1101 of 2026 stand disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the day of 17th February, 2026/Priyajit