p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1141 of 2026 Pramod Kumar Rana … Petitioner Mr. Shibani Sankar Pradhan, proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Karna, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 18.03.2026 01. IA No.87 of 2026 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. In view of the submission as advanced for the petitioner, IA No.87 of 2026 stands disposed of as not pressed. BLAPL No.1141 of 2026 3. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Special Case(NDPS) No. 82 of 2025 arising out of Boudh PS Case No.178 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of possessing 826 Kgs of Contraband Ganja inside a deep jungle near the village Udamund. Page 2 of 3 4. Heard, Mr. Shibani Sankar Pradhan, learned proxy counsel appearing virtually on behalf of Mr. Bikash Karna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide an order passed on 13.01.2026 in BLAPL No.11513 of 2025, but the present petitioner has again has approached this Court just after two months by taking another plea that he is not the petitioner as described in the FIR and statement of witnesses inasmuch as he is Pramod Kumar Rana from village Tileimal, but the consistent case of the prosecution is that the accused is Pramod Kumar Rana of village Siletpada. It is no doubt advanced for the petitioner that he is not the petitioner as described in the FIR and 161 statement, but it is alleged in the FIR that the source identified the petitioner. Be that as it may, the identification of the petitioner is a question of fact and can be gone into at the trial, however, the only difference is name of the village. On the other hand, the quantity of contraband article seized in this case is 826Kgs which is well above the commercial quantity, but this Court not only in the previous order, but also by going through the materials placed on record is of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for grant of bail. Further, the investigation is going on and such plea of the petitioner is premature at this stage. Besides, the p. 3 FIR and other materials allegedly indicates the presence of the petitioner at the spot, however, the averments of FIR itself disclose about prior intimation of the fact of the present case regarding storing of contraband ganja by five persons in a jungle and in consequence thereof, a raid was conducted at the place and huge quantity of contraband ganja was allegedly recovered. In the aforesaid facts and situation, especially when the investigation is going on, this Court hardly finds the petitioner to have satisfied the conditions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act. 6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stand rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna