IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.667 of 2026 Gupteswar Sahu @ Gupte Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. A. Das, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC And ABLAPL No.712 of 2026 Pakhita Barik @ Parikhita Barik …. Petitioner Mr. A. Das, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 03.02.2026 01. 1. Both the ABLAPLs are disposed of by the following common order. 2. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. 3. Instant petitions have been filed under Section 482 BNSS by the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Bausuni P.S. Case No.35 of 2022 corresponding to Special (NDPS) Case No.18 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Judge Special Court, Boudh on the grounds stated. 4. One of the petitioners, namely, Pakhita Barik had earlier approached this Court in ABALPL No.1107 of 2022 disposed of on 2nd March, 2023 denying pre-arrest bail to him. The other accused, namely, Gupteswar Sahu @ Gupte Sahu pleads for bail on similar ground since nothing was recovered and seized from them. Recorded the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, according to whom, no one was arrested at the spot. Both the names of the present accused persons are mentioned in the FIR i.e. Annexure-1. In fact, commercial quantity of contraband Ganja was seized from a vehicle. As it is revealed from Annexure-1, the accused persons responsible for the illicit transportation of Ganja managed to flee from the spot. The submission is that in absence of any such seizure being made from the petitioners, both should be allowed to go on bail even their names appear in the report. A serious objection is received from learned counsel for the State. Considering the fact that 108 Kgs of contraband Ganja has been transported in the alleged vehicle at the relevant point of time and it was intercepted by the local police and such recovery has taken place inside a jungle near a river side and having regard to the fact that the names of the petitioners are mentioned in the report itself with the co-accused persons allegedly responsible for the illicit transportation, the Court is not inclined to grant them pre-arrest bail as has been demanded. 5. Accordingly, it is ordered. 6. In the result, the ABLAPLs are disposed of and dismissed. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU