IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT UTTACK CRLREV No. 274 of 2026 Phanichand Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. J. Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 17.04.2026 I.A. No.358 of 2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay. 3. Considering the recitals in the I.A. and the submissions made, the delay in filing of the CRLREV is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- in Juvenile Justice Fund of Odisha State Legal Services Authority, Aain Seva Bhawan, Sector 1, CDA, Cuttack by 22.04.2026 and receipt to the said effect shall be placed on record. 4. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge 02. CRLREV No.274 of 2026 1. On the consent of the Parties, the matter is taken up for consideration on merits. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.M.C. No.03 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.35 of 2024(NDPS) imposing cash security of Rs.1,50,000/- while permitting release of the Bolero pick up FB PS 1.3T bearing registration No.OD-03-AA-5585 involved under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, the present Revision has been filed. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that directing to pay cash security is punitive and in fact renders the order of release nugatory and is against the spirit of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel that though the learned Special Judge referred to the same but failed to appreciate the financial capacity of the Petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that such cash security obviously has been imposed as a deterrent. Hence, ought not to be interfered with more so when the allegation is under the NDPS Act. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that because of financial constraints the Petitioner was not even able to assail the impugned order in time. 8. Considering the submissions and keeping in view the letter and spirit of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), this Court is persuaded to hold that imposition of cash security in the case at hand in the given facts is not warranted. Accordingly, the cash security imposed is set-aside and is modified that on furnishing the property security of Rs.1,50,000/-, the vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the Petitioner, subject to such other stipulations as may be imposed by the learned Trial Court. Other stipulations as per the impugned order remain unaltered. 9. Before releasing the vehicle, learned Special Judge is requested to verify as to whether the cost as imposed has been deposited or not. In the event of non-payment of the same, this order shall not be given effect to. 10. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Ayesha