IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4411 of 2025 Brishnu Ray @ Bishnu Ray …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Anirudha Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 13.01.2026 03. 1. Heard. 2. Along with four other accused persons, the petitioner was implicated in the F.I.R. dated 28.02.2021 in Umerkote P.S. Case No.82 of 2021 for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 17.08.2021. The present petitioner has been an absconder. Therefore, the trial got spilted up qua the other accused. The four other accused persons those who have faced trial, have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide a detailed judgment dated 29.09.2023 in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021. The learned trial Court while acquitting the co-accused persons inter alia observed as under:- “23. The prosecution examined other witnesses to establish the fact of seizure of ganja. The independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution at all. The official witnesses have stated about recovery and seizure of the contraband ganja. The principal witness in this case are PW No.10 and PW No.18. As discussed above, there is no coordination between the evidence of PW No.10 and PW No.18. PW No.10 did not comply the requirement of Sec.50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. PW No.18 failed to comply Sec. 42 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view to hold that the evidence of PW No.10 and PW No.18 are not sufficient to hold that the requirement of the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act are complied in this case.” 3. Relying upon the aforementioned observations made by the learned trial Court in its judgment dated 29.09.2023, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted case on record that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to comply the statutory safeguard contemplated under Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the advantage of the same goes to the benefit of the present petitioner. He further submits that the learned trial Court has issued coercive process against the petitioner because he was shown as an absconder. Hence, he assails the same. 4. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that since the petitioner is an absconder, this Court should not give indulgence to him. Due to his absconding, the case was spilted up and the trial of other co-accused persons have been concluded. 5. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the entire sequence of event and the fact that the other co-accused persons have been acquitted, the execution of NBW issued by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Umerkote in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021 against the petitioner on 09.12.2021 shall remain stayed for a period of six weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner shall surrender and resort to the remedy available to him. No further extension for surrendering shall be granted. It is open for the petitioner to raise plea of bail before the learned trial Court by relying upon the judgment dated 29.09.2023 in in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021. 6. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna Designation: Senior Stenographer