IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 7236 of 2025 Abhiram Bibar …. Petitioner Dr. S. Ranjit, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 13.08.2025 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with T.R. Case No.38 of 2020 pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Gunupur, Dist.- Rayagada arising out of Chandrapur P.S. Case No.44 of 2020 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(a)(i)/25/27- A/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the co-accused have been acquitted by judgment dated 01.12.2023 in T.R. No.38 of 2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur, Rayagada and as the implication of the Petitioner is on account of the co-accused statement, he may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 4. In this context, the attention of this Court is drawn to the paragraph-9 of the judgment of the learned Trial Court on record, more particularly the observation on scrutiny of the evidence which reads thus:- “………………..None of the witness except P.Ws.8 and 9 (the informant and the I.O respectively) has whispered a single word regarding financing of the accused persons Duli Bibara and Karuna Hial for alleged cultivation of cannabis plants and the cultivation being made by other accused persons. Under the above circumstances there is no clear and clinching evidence regarding the involvement of the present accused persons in the alleged cultivation of the cannabis plants.” 5. It is trite that the evidence on record in a trial is in respect of the accused, who is put to trial and the same cannot be relied upon vis-à-vis an accused who is yet to face trial. Since there are catena of judgments on this aspect, this Court does not want to repeat the same. 6. Taking into account the nature of the evidence as relied upon referring to P.Ws.8 & 9, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the same shall apply in equal measure to the present Petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application. However, in the event the Petitioner surrenders before the learned Court in seisin in the aforesaid case and moves an application for his release on bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit. 7. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi