p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.765 of 2026 Rinku Taria … Petitioner Mr. B.R. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL):06.07.2026 04. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with District Mobile Squad, Boudh PR No.39 of 2024-25 corresponding to 2(a) CC Case No.18 of 2024 (NDPS Act) pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing 515 Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a Jungle. 2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although huge quantity of Contraband Ganja was seized from a Jungle, but the Petitioner was never apprehended from the spot and finding the motor cycle of the Petitioner parked near the alleged place, the Petitioner has been implicated in this case, but the Petitioner has in fact applied to this Court for quashing of the proceeding against him in an application U/S. 528 of BNSS which was registered as CRLMC No. 5251 of 2025, however, the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposing the CRLMC has observed that Sec. 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted against p. 2 the petitioner and, therefore, the present Petitioner having surrendered to custody may kindly be granted bail. 2.1. On the other hand, Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. PP by taking this Court through the facts of the case submits that not only the Petitioner had avoided the notice, but also NBWA was prayed for his apprehension and thereby, the Petitioner’s conduct itself is not inspiring to grant him bail, besides the materials on record discloses a strong prima facie case against the Petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. T.K. Acharya prays to reject the bail application of the Petitioner. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the Petitioner for possessing 515 Kgs of Contraband Ganja which is definitely coming under commercial quantity. Grant or refusal of bail to an accused for commission of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is governed by Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, which prescribes that no person accused of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where 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 the offence and the accused is unlikely to commit offence while on bail. It is of course observed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court that Sec. 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted, but the CRLMC was preferred for quashing of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner which was in fact not done, rather the Coordinate Bench has passed order directing the Petitioner p. 3 to surrender before the Court and seek for bail and in that event, the Court shall pass order in accordance with law taking into consideration that the bar as provided U/S. 37 of NDPS Act. Law is equally well settled that in a proceeding U/S.528 of BNSS, no relief of bail can ordinarily be granted. In the aforesaid facts and taking into account the materials so placed on record and there being allegation against the Petitioner for possessing 515 Kgs of Contraband Ganja, which is coming under commercial quantity and the Petitioner having intentionally avoided his arrest despite issuance of several notices to him forcing the IO to pray issuance of NBW against the Petitioner, this Court in the circumstance is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner. 4. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter. (G. Satapathy) Judge Priyajit