p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10036 of 2025 Gulam Kuldi …. Petitioner Mr. Rakesh Behera, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 26.09.2025 F.I.R/ PR No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 0425 14.09.2025 Parjanga Parjanga P.S. Case No.425 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. (Spl.) NDPS Case No.15 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Judge Special Court, Kamakhyanagar Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act. Read with Section 52(a)(i) of Odisha Excise Act. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. Page 2 of 3 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners, being in custody in connection with Parjanga P.S. Case No.425 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. (Spl.) NDPS Case No.15 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Special Court, Kamakhyanagar, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act read with Section 52(a)(i) of Odisha Excise Act have filed the present petition seeking release on bail. 4. The prosecution case in short is as follows: On 13.09.2025 at about 11.30 P.M. on receiving reliable information, the S.I. of Parjang P.S. along with his staff proceeded to Rengali Colony of Badajhara jungle and apprehended the accused. On verification, contraband articles i.e. 24 Kg of ganja (commercial quantity) and 900 litres of I.D. liquor were recovered and seized from his possession. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had no knowledge regarding transportation of contraband ganja. He further contends that nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 14.08.2025. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed. Page 3 of 3 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 Act which bars granting of bail. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner and the stringent punishment provided and also the statutory bar to grant bail under Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act in an offence of this nature without recording the satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case, the Petitioner’s prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected. Hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach afresh after charge- sheet is submitted. 8. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sumitra