Facts
The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Bolangir GRP P.S. Case No. 0039 of 2025, corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 32 of 2025, concerning an alleged offence under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act.
Source reference: p.1, para.1The prosecution alleged that the petitioner possessed 592 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup, each containing 100 ml of Codeine Phosphate.
Source reference: p.1, para.1The petitioner contended that several persons were present at the time of seizure and that he was not found in conscious possession of the contraband.
Source reference: p.2, para.2The State opposed bail, asserting that the petitioner had four criminal antecedents, including two cases under the NDPS Act, and had suppressed those antecedents in the bail application.
Source reference: p.2, para.2.1The antecedents comprised cases under the IPC, the Explosives Act, and Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act.
Source reference: p.3, para.3Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, notwithstanding the allegation of possession of 592 codeine-based cough syrup bottles.
Source reference: p.1, para.1; p.4, para.42. Whether suppression of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, including two cases of a similar NDPS nature, disentitled him to the discretionary relief of bail.
Source reference: p.2, para.2.1; p.3, paras.3–4Law Applied
The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, and considered the allegation under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act relating to possession of a preparation containing Codeine Phosphate.
Source reference: p.1, para.1The Court relied on Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, particularly paragraph 9, for the principle that an accused who suppresses material facts concerning involvement in criminal cases is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
Source reference: p.3, para.4The Court also treated the nature and gravity of the alleged NDPS offence and the petitioner’s antecedents, including two similar cases, as relevant considerations in deciding bail.
Source reference: p.4, para.4Reasoning
The Court found that there was an allegation connecting the petitioner with possession of 592 codeine-containing cough syrup bottles, although the petitioner disputed conscious possession.
Source reference: p.2, para.2; p.3, para.4More significantly, the petitioner had failed to disclose four pending criminal cases in his bail application, including two cases under Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act.
Source reference: p.3, paras.3–4Applying the principle in Munnesh, the Court held that such suppression of material antecedents undermined the petitioner’s claim to discretionary bail.
Source reference: p.4, para.4Considering the alleged NDPS offence, its nature and gravity, the petitioner’s four criminal antecedents, and the two similar cases, the Court declined to exercise its power under Section 483 of the BNSS in his favour.
Source reference: p.4, para.4Holding
The Court answered the bail issue against the petitioner and held that he was not entitled to bail, primarily because he had suppressed material criminal antecedents and was allegedly involved in two similar NDPS cases.
The bail application was rejected and accordingly disposed of.
Source reference: p.4, para.4A soft copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the court seized of the matter.
Source reference: p.4, para.4Acts & Sections Cited
4 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19852
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Original Court PDF
DHABALESWAR JENA @ MANTUvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
