IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2560 of 2026 Bisikesan Meher …. Petitioner Mr. A. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 27.04.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is accused in connection with Special Case (NDPS) No.80 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh, arising out of Boudh P.S. Case No.125 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.483 of the BNSS by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh by order dated 18.02.2026 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. This is the second journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Petitioner had moved this Court in BLAPL No.7421 of 2025 and by order dated 12.01.2026 considering the nature of allegation rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for bail. Hence, this application. 6. The allegation against the Petitioner is of possessing contraband (ganja) to the tune of 20 quintals 40 kgs in a cottage inside deep jungle. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the case of the prosecution that the accusation qua the Petitioner is based on his identification by one Sapteswar Kumbhar and in the meanwhile, he has been examined and in this respect the attention of this Court was drawn to the recitals in the FIR, which runs thus; “xxx xxx xxx On seeing the police, the 6 suspected started running towards jungle side in different way. We chased him little distance but could manage to flee from the spot and disappeared in jungle. Out of 6 persons, the source and local GR Sapteswar Kumbhar identified 3 persons as (1) Mahendra mallik (52) S/O.Trilochan Malik of village Matagadu PS/Dist-Boudh, (2) Bamadev Mallik (48) S/O. Trilochan Mallik of village Matagadu, PS/Dist-Boudh (3) Bisikesan Meher (42) S/O. Bedabyasa Meher of village Singari, PS-Baunsuni, Dist-Boudh. We found that huge quantity of jerry bags were kept inside the cottage and smell of ganja are coming out from the bags. xxx xxx xxx” (Petitioner is at serial No.’3’) 8. It is submitted that the said gramarakhi Sapteswar was cited as P.W.2 on behalf of the prosecution and he has not supported the prosecution and it is asserted with vehemence in the light of the said deposition that there is no material prima facie connecting the Petitioner with the alleged commission of offence. Hence, Petitioner may be released on bail. 9. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer and submits that there are other witnesses to be examined and hence, no leniency ought to be shown qua the Petitioner, in view of the bar contained in section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. 10. This Court also perused the seizure list, which indicates that the contraband was seized from the house of one of the co-accused Mahendra Mallik. 11. In the light of the evidence of P.W.2, noted herein above, and the seizure being admittedly effected from the house of the co-accused and the identification of the present accused being based on the statement of the said P.W.2, who did not support the prosecution, this Court is persuaded to hold that notwithstanding the contraband being more than the commercial quantity, the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is not attracted qua the Petitioner. 12. The evidence of P.W.2, the Gramarakhi, is taken on record. 13. It is stated at the Bar that the Petitioner does not have any criminal proclivity. 14. Considering the basis of implication and the submissions made, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin subject to verification of criminal antecedent. 15. Before releasing, learned Court in seisin is requested to verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioner. If it comes to the fore that the Petitioner has criminal antecedent of any nature, this order shall not be given effect to. 16. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 17. UCC as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi