p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Harish Soni (In BLAPL No.6874 of 2025) Sandeep Kumar (In BLAPL No.6957 of 2025) Sushil Kumar Pradhan (In BLAPL No.7133 of 2025) … Petitioners Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, Advocate (in all BLAPLs) -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 08.01.2026 06. 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 three applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Orkel PS Case No.0153 of 2025 corresponding to Special GR Case No.77 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri for commission of offences punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii)(C)/ 25/ 27-A/ 29 of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing 1190Kgs of contraband ganja in a jungle, along with co-accused persons. Page 2 of 4 4. In the course of hearing Mr. Rajib Lochan Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the seizure list and weighment chart do not contain the signature of the petitioners and the IO has manipulated the documents to mislead this Court, but fact remains that the present case has been manipulated and manufactured against the petitioners and the memo U/S.50 of the NDPS Act served upon the petitioners contain a date prior to the date of seizure and, therefore, the petitioners prima facie not being found in conscious possession of contraband articles, Sec.37 of NDPS Act would not be attracted against the petitioners. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Pattnaik prays to grant bail to the petitioners. 4.1 On the other hand, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP. however submits that it is false to say that the seizure list and weighment chart do not contain the signature of the petitioners since it do contain their signatures and there is in fact no manipulation, however, the petitioners in order to get rid of a case under NDPS Act involving huge quantity of contraband ganja has taken such plea without any substance and therefore, the petitioners having failed to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, their bail application may kindly be rejected. 5. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of records, there appears allegation against the petitioners for possessing 1190Kgs of p. 3 Contraband Ganja, which is well above the commercial quantity, but the petitioners have taken the plea in these bail applications that the documents were manufactured by the IO, who have subsequently obtained the signatures of the petitioners, which was in fact a question of fact and can be gone into at the trial. Be that as it may, since the quantity of Contraband Ganja recovered in this case allegedly 1190Kgs, which does not relate to personal possession of the petitioners, Sec.50 of the NDPS Act has no application. On being asked as to whether it is mandatory for the IO to obtain signatures of the petitioners-accused on the seizure lists, Mr. Pattanaik could not clarify the Court. However, no provision under NDPS Act brought to the knowledge of the Court to mandatorily obtain the signature of the accused persons on seizure list, but the investigating officer may obtain signature of the accused persons on the said documents as a abundant precaution. 6. It is not out of place to mention, at the time of consideration of bail application, the procedure or formality relating to search and seizure cannot be ascertained precisely, but the same can be ascertained during trial after evidence being led, however, prima facie seizure of article can be looked into. On the other hand, according to Sec.37 of NDPS Act, no person accused of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail, when p. 4 Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application of such accused person; unless the Court satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit offence while on bail. In this case, the quantity of Contraband Ganja seized is 1190Kgs, but on going through 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 of NDPS Act involving commercial quantity. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the quantity of Contraband Ganja seized in this case and the 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. 7. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners Harish Soni, Sandeep Kumar, Sushil Kumar Pradhan stand rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL Nos.6874, 6957, 7133 of 2025 stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna