Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5265 (ORI)

TUNI SETHI v. STATE OF ODISHA

BLAPL/1330/2026 · 2026-03-19

Gourishankar Satapathy

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Tuni Sethi (In BLAPL No.1330 of 2026) Padmabati Digal (In BLAPL No.1337 of 2026) Tuna @ Runa Sethi (In BLAPL No.1553 of 2026) … Petitioners Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate (in all BLAPLs) -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL)19.03.2026 01. 1. These are the bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Kotinada PS Case No.293 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.16 of 2025(N) pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Aska, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of jointly possessing 62Kgs and 545Grams of Contraband Ganja. 2. Heard Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned counsel for petitioners in all these three bail applications and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. PP in these matters and perused the record. On being queried about the criminal antecedent of the petitioners, Mr. Sahoo volunteers to withhold bail to the petitioners, if they are found to have any criminal antecedent of similar nature for commission of offence under NDPS Act. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against p. 2 the petitioners and three others for jointly transporting 62kgs and 545Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a bus, but individually all the six accused persons were allegedly found possessing less than the commercial quantity of contraband ganja and that too, in a bus. It is also stated in the charge-sheet that the petitioner-Tuni Sethi & Tuna Sethi were sitting adjacent to each other in two seats, whereas the other petitioner was sitting separately and rest of the co-accused persons were also sitting separately in three different seats. No doubt the total quantity of contraband ganja seized in this case is above the commercial quantity, but in this situation, when all the six persons were possessing less than the commercial quantity of contraband ganja individually while travelling in a bus and they having not found implicated in other cases of similar nature, it would be considered proper to dispense with the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act for the petitioners. 4. Admittedly, petitioners Tuni Sethi and Padmabati Digal are ladies and they are in custody since 31.07.2025, but in the meantime charge-sheet has already been submitted, however, there is no immediate prospect of trial and there are 20 charge-sheeted witnesses and, therefore, the trial would take some time. Further, it is claimed that the petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents of similar nature for commission of offence under NDPS Act. 5. For the reason stated hereinabove and taking into account the pre-trial detention of the petitioners in p. 3 custody with submission of charge-sheet in the meantime, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits the petitioners to bail, but subject to verification of their criminal antecedents. 6. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners Tuni Sethi (BLAPL No.1330 of 2026); Padmabati Digal (BLAPL No.1337 of 2026) & Tuna @ Runa Sethi (BLAPL No.1553 of 2026) stand allowed and the petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it. 7. In view of the specific submission as advanced for the petitioners, the benefit of this order shall not be extended to the concerned petitioner(s), if he/they is/are found to have any criminal antecedent of similar nature for commission of offences under NDPS Act. 8. Accordingly, the BLAPL Nos.1330, 1337 & 1553 of 2026 stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. 9. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna