Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.97 of 2025 Sudam Jhankar ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Anirudha Das -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. A. Sethy, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 07.01.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the records. 3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 20(a)(i) of N.D.P.S. Act r/w section 27(1) of Orissa Forest Act in Boudh P.S.Case No.303 of 2017 of the Court of learned Special Judge, Boudh. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, upon getting information, the Police team raided a place where cannabis plants were being grown at a Government Plot. He further contended that on local enquiry, the Police raiding party came to know that the Page 2 of 3. present Petitioner was involved in growing such cannabis plants, as a result of which the Petitioner has been implicated in the present case. Further, referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R., learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is in no way involved in the present case. He also submitted that no recovery has been made from the conscious and exclusive possession of the Petitioner, nor was he present at the spot. Therefore, the bar under section 37 of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case. He also submitted that the Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent of similar nature and that since the Petitioner belongs to the locality, there is no chance of his absconding. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State on the other hand objected to the release of the Petitioner on pre- arrest bail on the ground of gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He also submitted that the investigation is on. In such eventuality, release of the Petitioner at this stage would have adverse impact on the investigation. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact and further keeping in view the fact that the bar under section 37 of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case, the Petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before the learned Special Judge, Boudh, in the aforesaid case within four weeks from today. In the event the Petitioner surrenders and moves for bail within the aforesaid period, learned Special Judge, Boudh, shall do well to dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day on merit in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid observation of this Court. The case diary be made available to the concerned court to facilitate Page 3 of 3. disposal of the bail application of the Petitioner prior to the date of surrender along with the copy of this order. 7. The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Gitanjali