Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.6233 of 2026 Munu Khan ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Achyutananda Pattanaik -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. – Mr. Tapan Kumar Dash, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 17.06.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Virtual Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. Perused the records. 3. This is an application under Section 482, BNSS filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii)C/ 25/ 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in C.T. Case No.119 of 2025 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Phulbani arising out of Phulbani Sadar P.S. Case No.224 of 2025. 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not present at the spot, however, he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the co-accused statement. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. the State of Page 2 of 3. Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 contended before this Court that such evidence of the co-accused shall not be utilized as an evidence against the petitioner. He further contended that since no contraband article has been seized from the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted to the case of the present Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent. He also submitted that the petitioner belongs to the locality, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. On such grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for release of the petitioner 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 allegations. He further submitted that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted to the case of the present Petitioner. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner does not want to press this application and seeks liberty to surrender before the court below and move an application for bail. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both the sides, on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case as well as on the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is permitted to surrender before the court in seisin over the matter within a period of three weeks from today and move an application Page 3 of 3. for bail. In such eventuality, court in seisin over the matter shall do well to consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day. It is further directed that while considering the bail application of the Petitioner, the court in seisin over the matter shall take note of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Tofan Singh’s case (supra) and also consider the applicability of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to the facts of the Petitioner’s case and pass necessary order(s) therein. 8. It is 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. 9. The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Vacation Judge Suchitra