IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2641 of 2026 Suku @ Biswa Ranjan Swain …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Smruti Ranjan Dash, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 11.05.2026 F.I.R. /P.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 20 of 2025- 26 19.08. 2025 Inspector of Excise, Rural Range, Cuttack 2(a) C.C. Case No.88 of 2025, learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack 21(b) of the NDPS Act 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in connection with Inspector of Excise, Rural Range, Cuttack P.R. No.20 of 2025- 26, corresponding to 2(a) C.C. Case No.88 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, registered Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-May-2026 21:22:22 Signature Not Verified for the alleged commission of offence under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.08.2025 at about 12:30 PM, while the Excise staff of Excise Rural Range, Cuttack, were performing patrol duty at Jagatpur Golei Chhak, the Petitioner, on seeing the Excise personnel, started running towards Nimpur Road. Thereafter, the Excise personnel apprehended him and upon search, the IIC of Excise recovered 130 grams of heroin (Diacetylmorphine) kept in a white-coloured polythene pouch. As the Petitioner failed to produce any authentic document authorizing possession of the heroin (Diacetylmorphine). 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.08.2025, final prosecution repot has already been submitted and some of the material witnesses have already been examined. It is further contended that the alleged recovery is of 130 grams of heroin, which is below the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that there is no material to suggest conscious possession, the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence. Accordingly, prayer for grant of bail is made. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application contending that there are sufficient materials indicating the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged offence and he has four criminal antecedents and considering the nature and gravity of the offence affecting society at large, the Petitioner does not deserve enlargement on bail. 7. It is not disputed that the alleged recovery is of 130 grams of heroin, which is below the commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. The Petitioner has been in custody since 19.08.2025, charge sheet has already been filed and substantial progress in trial has been made with some material witnesses already examined. 8. In view of the above facts, the stage of investigation being complete and the unlikelihood of tampering with evidence or absconding, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper by the learned trial Court, including the following conditions: i. The Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each date of hearing without fail; ii. The Petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses in any manner; iii. The Petitioner shall not commit any offence similar in nature during the period of bail. 10. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 11. The BLAPL stands disposed of. 12. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun