p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3815 of 2026 Muna Bisoyi …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhansu Sekhar Dash, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 06.05.2026 F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 152 25.05. 2022 Sheragada G.R. Case No.8(A)/2022 (N), Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in connection with Sheragada P.S. Case No.152 dated 25.05.2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.8(A) of 2022(N), pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-May-2026 19:17:07 Signature Not Verified p. 2 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.05.2022 at about 9:40 PM, the informant received credible information regarding illegal stocking, packing and sale of contraband ganja at the house of one Mangulu Pradhan. A police team immediately proceeded to the spot and reached at about 10:10 PM. On arrival, the locality was found to be deserted. During surveillance, a strong smell of ganja was perceived emanating from the houses of Mangulu Pradhan and the present Petitioner. The area was cordoned off and a search was conducted. During search, 40 bags containing a total quantity of 1,046 kg 280 grams of ganja were recovered and seized. One person present at the spot disclosed that the contraband was transported in a Dala Auto bearing registration No.OD-32-C-1204. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.03.2026, investigation is complete and charge sheet has already been filed. It is further contended that there are no criminal antecedents of similar nature against the Petitioner. Reliance is also placed on the acquittal of a co-accused and the fact that several prosecution witnesses, including independent witnesses, have turned hostile. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the Petitioner had been absconding and was declared as such, with a Non-Bailable p. 3 Warrant having been issued against him on 22.12.2023. It is further submitted that the contraband recovered is of commercial quantity, attracting the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Petitioner is directly implicated in a serious narcotics offence affecting society at large. 7. The seizure of a huge quantity of 1,046 kg 280 grams of ganja clearly falls within the ambit of “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act. At this stage, the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted. The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 8. Significantly, the record reveals that the Petitioner was absconding and a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against him. Abscondence of an accused is a serious circumstance reflecting upon his conduct and conduct subsequent to the commission of offence and it weighs heavily against grant of bail. 9. The fact that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, by itself, does not dilute the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, especially in cases involving recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. 10. In view of the nature and gravity of accusation, the quantity of contraband involved, the statutory bar under p. 4 Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the conduct of the Petitioner in evading the process of law, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected and disposed of. 12. It is, however, observed that the trial Court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously without being influenced by any observation made herein. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun