IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.189 of 2025 Samara Madkami …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr.Jateswar Nayak, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 09.01.2025 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. 2. This is an application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for his alleged involvement in the offences U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act in connection with Orkel P.S. Case No.72 of 2023, corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.68 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and further on the ground that he is the owner of the motorcycle involved in the crime. According to learned counsel, the Petitioner was neither the owner of the vehicle nor any such material has been brought on record showing the p. 2 p. 2 Petitioner to be the owner of the vehicle. He further submitted that the Petitioner has been detained in custody for about two years and as such his liberty may be considered. 4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that six witnesses have been examined and the co-accused who was granted liberty having absconded, the Petitioner if granted liberty may also abscond and the trial shall be delayed while it is likely that the case would be closed soon. 5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State and on perusal of the charge sheet it reveals that the Petitioner has not been implicated in the case solely on the ground that he is the owner of the motorcycle in question but he was an active participant in possession of the contraband article and escaped from the spot on being chased by the Police. Needless to mention that the quantum of the contraband article is huge and admittedly one of the co-accused who has been granted bail remained absconded for which the trial suffered for sometimes and it is only after the case was split up against the absconded accused that the trial could proceed further and six witnesses have since been examined. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the State the grant of liberty the accused at this stage may protract the trial and the same having progressed substantially, there is every likelihood that the case would be closed within a short time. p. 3 p. 3 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge KC Bisoi