p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Pramod Kumar Rana (In BLAPL No.11513 of 2025) Rameswar Rana (In BLAPL No.134 of 2026) … Petitioners Mr. A. Das, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 11513 of 2025) Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 134 of 2026) -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 13.01.2026 02. 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 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 Special Case(NDPS) No. 82 of 2025 arising out of Boudh PS Case No.178 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing 826 Kgs of Contraband Ganja inside a deep jungle near the village Udamund. p. 2 4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Anirduha Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 11513 of 2025 submits that there is absolutely no material placed on record to identify the present Petitioner, but whatever has been stated in the FIR is concocted and motivated one only to implicate the present Petitioner in this case. Mr. Das further submits that since there is nothing on record to infer prima facie possession of contraband article by the Petitioner, it can be well said that the Petitioner has satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act and, therefore, the Petitioner may kindly be granted bail. 4.1. Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 134 of 2026 in echoing the submission as advanced by Mr. Das further submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that since nothing was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the present Petitioner, the bar as provided U/S. 37 of NDPS Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case and, therefore, since the bar as provided U/S. 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable, the Petitioner may kindly be granted bail in this case. 4.2. On the other hand, Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by taking this Court through the materials placed on record submits that FIR has been lodged against the present Petitioners for consciously possessing 826 Kgs of Contraband Ganja and thereby, they having not satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, their bail applications may kindly be rejected. Page 3 of 4 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it is evident that FIR has been lodged against five persons including the present Petitioners and there was recovery of 826 Kgs of Contraband Ganja, which is admittedly much more than the commercial quantity. No doubt, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in an application U/S. 528 of BNSS has held that since nothing was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the present Petitioner, the bar as provided U/S. 37 of NDPS Act would not be attracted, but there is little scope in a proceeding U/S. 528 of BNSS to appreciate the materials and this Court, however, respectfully differs with such observation of the Coordinate Bench inasmuch as the bar as provided U/S. 37 of NDPS Act has to be considered only on the materials placed before the Court, but in this case, the Petitioners have only supplied the copy of FIR and rejection order, however, the investigation is going on. It is, therefore, too early to say that the Petitioners have satisfied the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act. 6. This Court is also conscious of the personal liberty of a person that cannot be withheld on mere surmise or conjecture, but when there are materials to the effect that the Petitioners were allegedly there in the Jungle along with Contraband Ganja, this Court does not consider it proper to take a contrary view at this stage without further materials being produced to show that the Petitioners were not allegedly found with the Contraband Ganja, of course when there is allegation in the FIR that the Petitioners fled p. 4 away from the spot along with co-accused persons and the source identified them. Further, a copy of FIR itself discloses about prior intimation of the fact of the present case regarding storing of Contraband Ganja by five persons in the jungle and in consequence of such information, raid was conducted at the place and Contraband Ganja was allegedly recovered. In the aforesaid facts and situation, especially when the investigation is going on, 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 for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity. 7. Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPL Nos.11513 of 2025 and 134 of 2026 stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Priyajit