IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 5422 of 2025 Aditya Kumar ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Dibyajyoti Sahoo, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha …… Opposite Party Mr. S. Nayak, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 30.05.2025 Order No. 01. F.I.R /P.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 13 15.04.2025 District Mobile Unit Jharsuguda 2(a)C.C. Case No.11 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Jharsuguda Section- 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. 1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with District Mobile Unit Jharsuguda P.R. Case No. 13 of 2025, corresponding to 2(a)C.C. Case No.11 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Jharsuguda , registered for the alleged commission p. 2 of offences under Section-20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition seeking their release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 15.04.2025 at about 8 A.M. the informant named Sanjay Kumar Barik at present working as RPF S.I. at RPF Post, Jharsuguda, while performing patrolling duty along with his staff, received an information from reliable source that the present Petitioner was carrying a plastic sack which containing contraband ganja. After receiving the said information, the informant reached at the spot and detained the present petitioner and after being searched, seized 6 Kg of contraband ganja from the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner at Platform No.l, Jharsuguda Railway Station. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that nothing has been seized from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Petitioner. He is no way connected with the alleged offences by the prosecution in any manner. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent in his credit. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 15.04.2025. Therefore, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In view of all these above, according to him, the bar contained under section 37 of the NDPS Act at the stage does not stand on the way of grant of bail to the Petitioner. Therefore, when there is no scope on the part of the Petitioner to flee from justice p. 3 and tamper the evidence, he urges for reconsideration of the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner being an outsider, releasing him on bail he would lead to flee from justice and tamper the evidence. 7. Without going into the merit of the case and considering the facts and submission made and the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody, prayer of the Petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in connection with the above mentioned case subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter, who shall be at liberty to impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper with further conditions that:- i. the Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case till conclusion of the trial without fail; ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; iii. the Petitioner shall appear before his local P.S. i.e. at Prem Nagar P.S. in the District of Dehradun, p. 4 Uttarakhand and report before the I.O. once in a week i.e. on every Monday in between 10 am to 2 pm till conclusion of the trial. Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to the cancellation of the bail. 8. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Vacation Judge Puspanjali/Deepak Designation: Junior Stenographer Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.