IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4523 of 2026 Fardeen Khan @ Raja … Petitioner Mr. Kamil Rashid, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 15.05.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.114 of 2026 corresponding to C.T. (Special) Case No.08 of 2026 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jharsuguda, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of jointly possessing 12.48 grams of brown sugar in a bag along with co-accused persons. 3. Heard, Mr. Kamil Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. On being queried about the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, Mr. Rashid volunteers to withhold bail to the petitioner, if he is found to have any criminal antecedent of similar nature for commission of offence under NDPS Act. 4. It is, however, claim that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent of similar nature, but co-accused Abhiranga Roy @ Chhotu in BLAPL No.3915 of 2026 and Chhotu Sa and Avinash Behera in BLAPL No.3594 of 2026 have already been enlarged on bail. In the context of parity, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to the decision of Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) SCC OnLine SC 825, wherein at paragraph-71, the Apex Court, inter alia, has observed as follows :- “71. Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.” 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, especially when three co-accused persons have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and taking into account the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody since 28.02.2026 with submission of charge sheet in the meantime and the claim of the petitioner that he is not having any criminal antecedent, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to verification of his criminal antecedent of similar nature for commission of offence under NDPS Act. 6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it. In view of the specific submission as advanced for the petitioner, the benefit of this order shall not be extended to the petitioner, if he is found to have any criminal antecedent of similar nature for commission of offence under NDPS Act. 7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e- mail for reference. (G. Satapathy) Judge Rabi Designation: Personal Assistant