Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.9570 of 2025 Nikhil Sindhria ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Sarat Kumar Jena -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. - CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 23.09.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS filed by the Petitioner for bail in connection with Bargarh P.S. Case No.356 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. (Spl.) Case No.41 of 2025, pending in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge- cum-Judge, Special Court, Bargarh for alleged commission of offence under Sections 21(b)/29 of NDPS Act. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2025. He further contended that as per the F.I.R. allegation the quantity of brown sugar seized, i.e., 50 gms., which was recovered from the conscious & Page 2 of 3. exclusive possession of the Petitioner, which is less than the commercial quantity and therefore, bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and condition that would be imposed by this Court while the Petitioner release on bail. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility that he might be involved in similar criminal offences. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that nature of allegation and the contraband used in the present case is itself a threat to the society. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case and further keeping the view the period of detention of the Petitioner in jail custody and the fact that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions. 7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the Page 3 of 3. matter. 8. It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper including the conditions that the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date to which the case is posted for trial, shall not indulge in any criminal activities in any manner and shall not try to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail application. 9. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the Petitioner is having any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent under the offences of NDPS Act, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer