p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 2575 of 2026 Md. Zakir Hossain …. Petitioner Ms. R. Rajgarhia, Advocate -versus- Union of India …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Parhi, Sr. Adv. (DSGI) Mr. J. Panda, CGC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 22.04.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned DSGI along with learned CGC for Union of India. 2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with T.R. Case No.13 of 2025 pending on the file of learned 3rd Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, arising out of DRI F No.VIII (48) 1/CUS (P) SEIZURE OF MARIJUANA (H.W.)/ BPIA/2025 for commission of offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)/23/27(A)/28/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. It is apt to note that this Court by order dated 05.08.2025 in ABLAPL No.4614 of 2025 rejected the pre-arrest bail. For convenience of reference the said order is extracted hereunder; “1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned DSG for the Union of India. Page 2 of 6 2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with T.R. Case No.13 of 2025 pending on the file of learned 3rd Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar arising out of DRI F. No. VIII (48) 1/ CUS (P) SEIZURE OF MARIJUANA (H.W.)/ BPIA/2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/23/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the case at hand charge sheet has already been filed and referring to the case of the prosecution, it is submitted that the Petitioner may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 4. Such submission is opposed by Mr. Parhi, learned DSG on behalf of the Union of India. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.01.2025 night, on the arrival of Air Asia Flight No.AK-31, during the course of scanning of one black coloured bag bearing identification No.0807811800 and another blue colour bag bearing identification No.0807811805, some suspicious items were identified, for which, the bags were rescanned in XBIS X-ray machine installed in the arrival hall of Terminal No.2 building BPIA. During said scanning, 9.524 Kgs of contraband hydroponic weed (Marijuana/Ganja) which figures at Serial No.150 of the table in terms of Sub-clause (viia) & (xxiiia) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act, were recovered. 6. On perusal of the schedule of the table, it is seen that the commercial quantity is 50gms. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Rajgarhia referring to the interrogation of the co-accused which has been annexed to the affidavit filed by the Union of India that there is patent incongruity and that ought to weigh with this Court in deciding the pre-arrest bail. It is her further submission that the Petitioner had co-operated and therefore his custodial interrogation is not essential. 8. Per contra learned DSG, Mr. Parhi on behalf of the Union of India submits that the investigation in the case at hand is still underway and merely because charge sheet has been filed, taking into account the p. 3 role ascribed to the accused-Petitioner, he ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail. He also referred to the air travel details of the accused in custody and the Petitioner to establish prima facie complicity. 9. The rival submissions are to be considered in the light of the rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act. 10. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record and the nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail. 11. It is needless to state that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of the Petitioner’s application for pre-arrest bail and the same ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner which has to be established independently in the ongoing probe. 12. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.” 4. Subsequently, the Petitioner again filed ABLAPL No.13627 of 2025 and by order dated 10.12.2025 the same was withdrawn by passing the following order; “1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this ABLAPL with liberty to file a better application. Memo filed to the said effect is taken on record. 2. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of as withdrawn.” 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Rajgarhia that in the meanwhile the co-accused have been released on bail by this Court by order dated 24.09.2025 in BLAPL No.9286 of 2025 and it is submitted that so far as the present Petitioner is concerned, he is on a better footing, since his implication is on account of the co-accused p. 4 statement. And, it is her further submission that Petitioner had cooperated with ongoing investigation. Hence, his case merits grant of pre-arrest bail. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. J. Panda, learned CGC oppose the prayer for pre-arrest bail. 7. It is submitted that in the given facts of the case, if the Petitioner is protected by pre-arrest bail the ongoing investigation to probe the role played by the Petitioner cannot come to light and responding to the claim of the Petitioner of cooperating with the ongoing investigation is concerned, it is further submitted that the Petitioner appeared twice before the authorities but, subsequently, he has not responded to appear on 04.07.2025 and 24.07.2025. And, it is submitted by the learned DSGI, on instruction, that an application has already been moved before the learned Court in seisin seeking issuance of NBW through the special public prosecutor. As such, the prayer for pre-arrest bail ought not to be entertained. 8. This Court is not oblivious of the recent dictum of the Apex Court that grounds which weigh with the Court in the matter of consideration while granting post arrest bail also apply in equal measure while considering the pre-arrest bail. Page 5 of 6 9. In the given facts of the present case, taking into account that investigation so far as the Petitioner is concerned has hit a road block because of his non- cooperation as stated and there being no embargo to take into account the statement of a co-accused while considering the bail application (Ref: Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528) in the light of the provisions as contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and steps already initiated for seeking non-bailable warrant in respect of Petitioner treating him as an absconder as submitted by the learned DSGI, this Court is persuaded to hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to the exceptional remedy of pre-arrest bail. However, it is open for the Petitioner to surrender before the learned Court in seisin and seek for bail, which shall be considered on its own merit, without being impeded by any observations made in this order which is in connection with the Petitioner’s prayer for pre-arrest bail. Ground of parity, if so urged, shall also be taken into account in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 more particularly paragraph 98 thereof. Page 6 of 6 10. Accordingly, the ABLAPL is disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi