Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.6740 of 2026 Phiroj Bira ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sudhir Ranjan Mohapatra -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – J.Nayak, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 19.06.2026 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 Anticipatory Bail Application as well as the F.I.R. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act in 2(a) CC No- 23/2025 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi arising out of S.I of Excise, District Mobile Unit, Gajapati P.R No-154/2025-26. 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially the name of the Petitioner was not in the PR, subsequently, his name has been added as an accused on the basis of the allegation that the Petitioner happens to be the owner of the vehicle which Page 2 of 3. was involved in the alleged occurrence. He further contended that neither the Petitioner was present at the spot nor has any contraband article been recovered from his exclusive and conscious possession. Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to the facts of the Petitioner’s case. He further submitted that the principal accused in this case, who was arrested, has already been enlarged on bail. It was also contended that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent and that the Petitioner belongs to the locality. Therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground of gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He further submitted that the Petitioner must first comply with the requirements of the Section 37 of the NDPS Act before he is protected by grant of pre-arrest bail. On such ground, learned counsel for the State objected to the release of the Petitioner on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that the Petitioner does not want to press this bail application and seeks liberty to surrender before the court below and move an application for bail. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as taking into consideration the specific role played by the Petitioner and the allegations made against him, this Court is of the view that the bar under Section 37 would not be attracted to the facts of the Page 3 of 3. Petitioner’s case. Moreover, nothing has been recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of the present Petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court, on the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, permits the Petitioner to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter within a period of three weeks from today and move an application for bail. In such eventuality, learned court in seisin over the matter shall release the Petitioner on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may deem just and proper. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 8. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner shall be subject to the verification of his criminal antecedent. In the event, the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent, then this order shall stand automatically revoked. 9. The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Vacation Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer