p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2956 of 2026 1. Shantilata Naik 2. Kuni Naik 3. Prakash Naik …. Petitioners Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 22.04.2026 02. 1. The petitioners are accused in connection with C.T. (NDPS) Case No.11 of 2026 arising out of Purunakote P.S. Case No.31 of 2026 registered for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 18(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, pending in the Court of the learned Judge, Special Court, Angul. The petitioners had approached the learned Special Judge, Angul in C.T. (NDPS) Case No.11 of 2026 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 19.02.2026 rejected the bail application of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for enlargement on bail. Page 2 of 5 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction from the petitioners, submits that except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioners is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 3. The prosecution case is that on 11.02.2026 at about 11.48 p.m., the informant, who is the IIC of Purunakote P.S. submitted a report alleging that on the same day, he received credible information regarding illegal cultivation of large scale of Opium poppy plants at village Takarsinga. The informant along with other police personnel, Executive Magistrate, R.I. and Forest staff had been to Takarsinga on raid. After reaching near Takarsinga, they saw cultivation of huge opium poppy plants in different patches. On seeing the raiding party members, the other persons ran away from the spot, the police personnel could manage to apprehend accused persons, namely, Prakash Sahu, Abhaya Pradhan, Narahari Sahu, Madan Pradhan, Bhagaban Pradhan and Prakash Naik. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in so far as the petitioner no.3 is concerned, he was present at the spot whereas the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they were not arrested on the spot and they are implicated on the p. 3 basis of arrested accused disclosure. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in so far as the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, their bail application may be allowed because they were not arrested from the spot and they also do not have any criminal antecedents. 6. The petitioners have been in the jail custody since 12.02.2026. 7. Regard being had to the nature of allegation against the petitioners and the period of custody of the petitioners since 12.02.2026, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner no.1-Shantilata Naik and petitioner no.2-Kuni Naik on bail on the ground that they were not arrested from the spot and they have been implicated on the basis of arrested accused disclosure. 8. Hence, the petitioner no.1-Shantilata Naik and petitioner no.2-Kuni Naik are directed to be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions: (i) The no.1-Shantilata Naik and petitioner no.2- Kuni Naik shall appear before the I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 10.00 A.M. and 12.00 P.M. for at least three months; (ii) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial p. 4 Court till the disposal of the trial; (iii) They shall appear before the trial Court on each date on which the case is posted for trial; (iv) They shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever; (v) They shall not commit any offence while on bail, and (vi) They shall be released on bail subject to verification of similar type of antecedents. In the event the no.1-Shantilata Naik and petitioner no.2-Kuni Naik are found wanting for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 9. In so far as the petitioner no.3 is concerned, since he was arrested from the spot, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail. However, the petitioner no.3 is granted liberty to withdraw the present bail application to renew the bail application before the learned trial Court. 10. Liberty is granted to the petitioner no.3 to withdraw his bail application and renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court. Page 5 of 5 Subhasis 11. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Designation: Personal Assistant Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 24-Apr-2026 07:55:34