Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.6025 of 2026 Pankaja Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Karunakar Gaya -versus- State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 12.06.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through virtual mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the Anticipatory Bail Application as well as the F.I.R. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023 by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Puruna Katak P.S. Case No.154 of 2025, corresponding to Spl. Case (NDPS) Act) No.123 of 2025, pending in the court of the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Boudh, registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the Page 2 of 3. alleged crime. He further contended that the Petitioner was not present at the spot of occurrence and that nothing has been recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the present Petitioner. Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted to case of the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent and that he belongs to the locality, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned counsel 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 further submitted that the Petitioner was very much present at the spot and that by the time the raiding party arrived, the Petitioner was fled away from the vehicle. He further submitted that investigation in this case is still on. Therefore, release of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this juncture would cause adverse impact in progress of the investigation. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case, further Page 3 of 3. keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31 and on the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is permitted to surrender before the court in seisin over the matter within four weeks from today and move an application for bail. In such eventuality, the court in seisin over the matter shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner in accordance with law on the same day. While considering the bail application of the Petitioner, the court in seisin over the matter shall take into consideration the aforesaid observation made by this Court. It is further directed that the Case Diary as well as relevant materials be placed before the court concerned on the date of surrender of the Petitioner for consideration of bail application of the Petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the ABLAPL is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Vacation Judge Debasis