Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4789 of 2026 Purna Sahu & Anr. ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Jugala Kishore Panda -versus- State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. - Mr. P.K.Sahoo, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 17.06.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The present bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the Petitioners for regular bail in connection with Special 2 (a) C.C. Case No.05 of 2026 dated 05.05.2026, arising out of Inspector of Excise Sonepur Range P.R. Case No.182 of 2025-26, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Sonepur for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this Page 2 of 3. matter was not before any of the bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are in custody since 12.02.2026. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that keeping in view the quantity of ganja seized, i.e., 22 kgs from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Petitioners, a bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is attracted. He further submitted that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal antecedent. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners be released on bail on any terms and condition which the Petitioners undertake to abide by while on bail. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioners on bail on the ground that in the event the Petitioners are released on bail, there is a possibility that they might be involved in similar criminal offences. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that considering the nature of allegation and the contraband used in the present case, the release of the Petitioners would be a threat to the society. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioners be rejected at this juncture. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case and further keeping the view the period of detention of the Page 3 of 3. Petitioners in jail custody and the fact that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioners on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions. 7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) each with two local solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. 8. It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. 9. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioners is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the Petitioners are having any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioners are having any similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. 10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. (A.K. Mohapatra) Vacation Judge Rubi