p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2749 of 2025 Narendra Ahirwar …. Petitioner (s) Represented By Adv. Mr. Dibyajyoti Sahoo -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satapathy, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 01.05.2025 F.I.R ./P.R . No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Section 393 26.02.2025 District Mobile Unit, Jharsuguda 2(a) CC Case No.8 of 2025 arising out of District Mobile Unit, P.R. Case No.393 of 2024- 25 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Jharsuguda Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. p. 2 p. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner is being in custody in connection with 2(a) CC Case No.8 of 2025 arising out of District Mobile Unit, P.R. Case No.393 of 2024-25 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Jharsuguda, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 26.02.2025 at about 9.30 A.M., basing on the information received from the RPF SI namely Sanjay Kumar Barik, RPF post, Jharsuguda recovered and seized one white colour jari basta containing 5 kg narcotic ganja from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused at platform no.1, Jharsuguda Railway Station while he was transporting the same by a white colour jari basta. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had no knowledge regarding transportation of contraband ‘ganja’. The Petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2025. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that the Petitioner is from Madhya Pradesh, there is a chance of absconding. p. 3 p. 3 7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, since the Petitioner is an outsider and there is a chance of absconding, this Court declines to entertain the prayer of the present Petitioner. 8. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being dismissed. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Sumitra