SK. MANTAZ @ SK. MAMTAZ vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.4124 of 2026
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS ).
Sk. Mantaz @ Sk. Mamtaz Petitioner
…
-versus-
State of Odisha Opposite Party
…
For Petitioners Mr. S.C. Sr. Advocate along
:
with Mr. S. Mohapatra,
Advocate
For Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP
:
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:08.05.2026 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the
petitioners for grant of bail in connection with
Bhubaneswar STF P.S. Case No.14 of 2020 corresponding
rd
to T.R. Case No.133 of 2020 pending in the file of 3
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, for
commission of offences punishable under Sections
21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of
possessing 405 Grams of Brown Sugar, along with co-
accused persons.
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 1 of 11
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Soura Chandra
Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted
by Mr. Satya Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
Petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner
although has right to speedy trial, but the same not only
has been infringed in view of his detention in custody
since 12.07.2022, but also only 04 out of 24 charge
sheeted witnesses have been examined till today and
thereby, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near
future. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Vaibhav
Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2026 LiveLaw
(SC) 439 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vrs. State
(NCT of Delhi); (2023) SCC OnLine SC 352. On this
submission, Mr. Mohapatra prays to grant bail to the
petitioner.
2.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned
Addl. PP by harping on the criminal antecedents of the
petitioner submits that not only the petitioner has failed
to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, but also
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 2 of 11
he being involved in number of cases, his bail application
may kindly be rejected.
3. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against
the petitioner for possessing 405Grams of Brown Sugar
along with co-accused persons, but the aforesaid quantity
of Brown Sugar is definitely coming under commercial
quantity. Besides, the petitioner has the following
criminal antecedents:-
(a) Jaleswar P.S.Case No.53(A) of 2010,
U/s. 21(b) of NDPS Act , corresponding to
Spl.G.R.Case No.53 (A) of 2020, pending in
the court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-
Special Judge, Balasore.
(b) Jaleswar P.S.Case No.276 of 2021,
U/S. 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act
corresponding to Spl.G.R.Case No.210 of 2021
pending in the court of learned Sessions
Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore.
(c) Jaleswar P.S.Case No.279 of 2021,
U/s. 21(c) of NDPS Act , corresponding to
Spl.G.R. Case No.218 of 2021, pending in the
court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special
Judge, Balasore.
(d) Jaleswar P.S. Case No.300 of 2021,
U/s. 21(b) and 29 of NDPS Act ,
corresponding to Spl.G.R. Case No. 240 of
2021, pending before the court of learned
Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore.
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 3 of 11
(e) Jaleswar P.S. Case No.307 of 2021,
U/s. 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act ,
corresponding to Special G.R.Case No. 245 of
2021, pending in the court of learned District
Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balasore.
(f) Talasar P.S.Case No.01 of 2011, U/s. 21(b)
of NDPS Act , corresponding to Spl.G.R. Case
No. 07 of 2021, pending in the court of
st
learned 1 Additional District Judge, Balasore.
What is most significant is that, although the
petitioner knows about his criminal antecedent, but he
has never disclosed his criminal antecedents in his bail
application and the knowledge of the petitioner is
attributable from the comprehensive affidavit filed by him
in his earlier bail application in BLAPL No. 10025 of 2024.
In this regard, this Court considers it apt to refer to the
decision in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan;
2025 INSC 871 , the Apex Court in paragraphs-22 and
23 has inter-alia held as under:-
“22. Before parting, we would like to state that,
accounting for the criminal antecedents of the
accused while considering the bail applications
has been the subject matter of concern for
Courts across the country. The rules and orders
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be
specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V
specifically provide as below:
5. Bail applications . - In every
“
application for bail presented to the High
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 4 of 11
Court the petitioner shall state whether
similar application has or has not been
made to the Supreme Court, and if made
shall state the result thereof. The
petitioner/applicant shall also mention
whether he/she is/was involved in any other
criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and
decisions thereof. An application which does
not contain this information shall be placed
before the bench with the necessary
information.”
23. We feel that every High Court in the
country should consider incorporating a similar
provision in the respective High Court Rules
and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose
an obligation on the accused to make
disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any
other criminal case(s) previously registered.”
4. Further, in Zeba Khan Vrs. State of UP and
others; 2026 SCC OnLine 188, the Apex Court at
paragraphs-42, 43, 47 & 48 has been pleased to hold as
under:-
It has been consistently emphasized by this
“42.
Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is
under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete
and candid disclosure of all material facts having a
direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion.
Any suppression, concealment or selective
disclosure of such material facts amounts to
an abuse of the process of law and strikes at
the very root of the administration of criminal
justice .
43. In the present case, Respondent No. 2
deliberately concealed his criminal antecedents
before the High Court, both in the petition for
quashing FIR as well as in successive bail
applications. Even before this Court, only partial
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 5 of 11
disclosure was made in the counter-affidavit,
despite the existence of multiple criminal cases on
record. This conduct cannot be viewed as an
isolated lapse but reflects a growing and
disturbing trend of accused persons securing
discretionary relief by suppressing material
facts .
47. As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail
applications are examined at multiple stages - from
the trial Court to the High Court and ultimately this
Court - where courts are often constrained to take
a prima facie view on incomplete or selectively
presented records. Non-disclosure of material
aspects such as criminal antecedents, prior
bail rejections, duration of custody,
compliance with constitutional and statutory
safeguards, and the progress of trial may
result in the unwarranted grant of bail , or
conversely, the prolonged incarceration of accused
persons despite substantial custody having already
been undergone.
48. Thus, this Court is of the view that every
petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any
stage of proceedings, is under an obligation to
disclose all material particulars, including
criminal antecedents and the existence of any
coercive processes such as issuance of non-bailable
warrants, declaration as a proclaimed offender, or
similar proceedings, duly supported by an affidavit,
so as to promote uniformity, transparency and
integrity in bail adjudication.”
5. Grant or refusal of bail to an accused for
commission 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
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 6 of 11
bail, where the 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 he is unlikely to commit offence
while on bail. Reverting back to apply the conditions of
Sec.37 of NDPS Act to the facts of the present case, it
appears that not only the petitioner is allegedly involved
in this case, but also he is involved in another six cases
under NDPS Act , out of which, two cases are for
commercial quantity , but out of the twin conditions of
Sec.37 of NDPS Act, the Court has to record satisfaction
before granting bail to an accused that the accused is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail, however, the
existence of six criminal antecedents against the
petitioner for commission of offences under NDPS Act
itself is indicative of the petitioner not satisfying the
aforesaid condition 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.
6. It is, however, found that the petitioner is in
custody since more than three and half years, but the
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 7 of 11
trial is yet to be concluded. This Court is also firmly in
agreement that the right to speedy trial is the
fundamental right of an accused, but in State of Punjab
vrs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora; 2026 Live Law(SC)
421, the Apex Court has held as under:-
“10. Xx xx xxx The right to speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedly a
valuable constitutional guarantee; but in the
context of a special statute such as the
NDPS Act dealing with commercial
quantity , that right has to be read
alongside, and not in displacement of the
mandate of Sec.37 of NDPS Act
.”
The petitioner has undoubtedly relied upon the
cases in Vaibhav Singh (supra) and Mohd Muslim @
Hussain (supra), but in Vaibhav Singh (supra), the
petitioner-accused even being in custody for around nine
years was facing trial as Under Trial Prisoner for offences
under IPC, wherein there is no stipulation like Sec.37 of
NDPS Act, however, in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain
(supra) the accused was, however, facing trial under
NDPS Act for commercial quantity, but he had already
suffered incarceration for over 07 years, however, the
facts therein does not disclose any criminal antecedent
against the accused therein for similar nature, whereas in
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 8 of 11
the present case, the petitioner is having six criminal
antecedents under NDPS Act. Besides, the petitioner
herein has not disclosed his criminal antecedents in his
bail application even knowing the same.
7. Additionally, in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs.
Mohit Agarwal; (2022) 18 SCC 374, a three judge
Bench of the Apex Court has held as under:-
" The length of the period of his custody or
the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed
and the trial has commenced are by
themselves not considerations that can be
treated as persuasive grounds for granting
relief to the respondent under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act."
Besides, in Narcotic Control Bureau Vrs.
Kashif; 2024 SCC Online SC 3848, the Apex Court has
also made it clear that for release of Petitioner accused of
offences under NDPS Act involving in commercial
quantity, recording of satisfaction of conditions of Sec. 37
of NDPS Act is sine-qua-non. The relevant observation of
the Apex Court in Kashif (supra) is extracted as under:-
“ 8 . There has been consistent and persistent
view of this Court that in the NDPS cases,
where the offence is punishable with minimum
sentence of ten years, the accused shall
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 9 of 11
generally be not released on bail. Negation of
bail is the rule and its grant is an
exception . While considering the application
for bail, the court has to bear in mind the
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
which are mandatory in nature . The
recording of finding as mandated
in Section 37 is a sine qua non for
granting bail to the accused involved in
the offences under the said Act . Apart from
the granting opportunity of hearing to the
Public Prosecutor, the other two conditions
i.e., (i) the satisfaction of the court that
there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence and that (ii) he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail,
are the cumulative and not alternative
conditions.”
8. On a careful conspectus of materials placed on
record together with the discussion made hereinabove
keeping in view the six criminal antecedents of the
petitioner for commission of offence under NDPS Act, this
Court does not find the petitioner to have satisfied the
conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act. In view of the above
facts and taking into consideration the nature and gravity
of the offence as alleged against the petitioner vis-a-vis
the accusations sought to be brought against him and
regard being had to the materials placed on record
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 10 of 11
keeping in view the criminal proclivity of the petitioner
together with non-disclosure of his criminal antecedents
in this bail application and taking into account the failure
of the petitioner to satisfy 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, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the bail applications of the Petitioner
stand rejected. The learned trial Court is, however,
sincerely requested to expedite the trial, if there is no
other legal impediment.
9. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed
of. A soft copy of this order be immediately transmitted
to the Court in seisin over the matter for reference.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 8 day of May, 2026/S.Sasmal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 09-May-2026 14:13:33
BLAPL No. 4124 of 2026
Page 11 of 11