IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Pangi Raghunath (In BLAPL No.8563 of 2025) Vantala Ramu @ V. Ramu (In BLAPL No.9879 of 2025) Killo Jinu (In BLAPL No.12504 of 2025) … Petitioners Mr. S.K. Tripathy, Advocate (in BLAPL No.8563 of 2025 & BLAPL No.12504 of 2025) Mr. Mangu Nandy, Advocate (in BLAPL No.9879 of 2025) -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. Tapasa Kumar Acharya, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 08.01.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Since these three bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Chitrakonda PS Case No.211 of 2024 arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.197 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Malkangiri for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/ 29 of the NDPS Act, on the allegation of transporting 300 Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a Bolero Pick Up vehicle without registration number by escorting the said Bolero vehicle in one Motor Cycle, along with co-accused persons. 4. Heard, Mr. Soumya Kanta Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioners in BLAPL No.8563 of 2025 and BLAPL No.12504 of 2025; Mr. Mangu Nandy, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No.9879 of 2025 and Mr. Tapasa Kumar Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 5. Bail to the petitioners is essentially sought for on the ground that the petitioners did not possess any Contraband articles, but fact remains that there is allegation against the petitioners for escorting one Bolero Pick Up vehicle without registration number carrying 300 Kgs of Contraband Ganja, which is well above the commercial quantity. Grant or refusal of bail for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is governed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which prescribes that no person accused of an 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 such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 6. In the present case, the bail application of petitioners namely Killo Jinu and Vantala Ramu @ V. Ramu have earlier been rejected by this Court in BLAPL No.7278 of 2025 and BLAPL No.1023 of 2025 respectively, but thereafter, there is no material change in circumstance to consider their bail applications afresh. No doubt, the petitioner Pangi Raghunath has approached this Court for the first time, but on a careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record, this Court is unable to consider that the petitioners have satisfied the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant of bail in a case like this. 7. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners Pangi Raghunath, Vantala Ramu @ V. Ramu and Killo Jinu stand rejected. However, it is open to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail before the learned trial Court after examination of some of the witnesses. 8. Accordingly, BLAPL Nos.8563, 9879 & 12504 of 2025 stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Rabi Designation: Personal Assistant