IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2415 of 2026 Surendra Ghadei ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raj Bhushan Das, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 27.04.2026 Order No. 01. FIR No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 71 19.11.2025 Excise Nimapara Range Puri T.R. Case No.7 of 2026 pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara Sections 21(b) of NDPS Act 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Apr-2026 12:33:00 Signature Not Verified p. 2 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Excise Nimapara Range Puri P.R. No. 71 of 2025-26 corresponding to T.R. Case No.7 of 2026 pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 21(b) of NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 19.11.2025 at about 8.35 A.M., the Inspector of Excise, Nimapara Range, Puri along with other staff, was patrolling at Charichhak P.S. area. They noticed that a person was trying to escape suspiciously, seeing their vehicle. They detained that person and, on search, recovered 117 grams of heroin from the possession of that person. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is absolutely no material available on record remotely suggesting that the alleged contraband brown sugar has been seized from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Petitioner. He further contends that out of suspicion and by conducting a perfunctory inquiry, the excise officials have arraigned the Petitioner in the alleged occurrence. The Petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2025. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Apr-2026 12:33:00 Signature Not Verified p. 3 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that the brown sugar seized from the possession of the Petitioner is greater than the small quantity. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner and the stringent punishment provided and also the statutory bar to grant bail under Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act in an offence of this nature without recording the satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case, the Petitioner’s prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, their prayer for bail stands rejected. However, the Petitioner is granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. 8. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.