IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2091 of 2026 1. Prakash Sahu 2. Narahari Sahu 3. Rashmita Sahu 4. Charulata Sahu …. Petitioners Mr. Prajit Kumar Pradhan, 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 intimated the said fact to the higher authorities. They conducted raid on 11.02.2026 at about 12.12 P.M. After reaching at the spot, they saw huge cultivation of Opium Poppy plants in different patches. They went onwards the opium poppy plant and on their arrival at the spot, they saw that the cultivator ran away from the spot, but they could able to apprehend other accused persons, namely, petitioner nos.1, 2 and 4 others, who escaped from the spot and they confessed to have planted these opium plants for their wrongful pecuniary gain. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in so far as the petitioner nos.3 and 4 are concerned, they were not present at the spot hence not arrested from the spot whereas regarding petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they were arrested on the spot. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in so far as the present petitioners are concerned, they 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 since 12.02.2026, I am only inclined to enlarge the petitioner no.3-Rashmita Sahu and petitioner no.4- Charulata Sahoo on bail on the ground that they were not arrested from the spot and there is no allegation of conscious and exclusive possession of Opium Poppy plants in subject. These petitioner have been implicated only on the disclosed statement of arrested co-accused. 8. Hence, the petitioner no.3-Rashmita Sahu and petitioner no.4-Charulata Sahoo 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 petitioner no.3-Rashmita Sahu and petitioner no.4-Charulata Sahoo 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 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 petitioner no.3-Rashmita Sahu and petitioner no.4-Charulata Sahoo 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 nos.1 and 2 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the present bail application to renew the bail application before the learned trial Court. 10. Liberty is granted to the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to renew their bail application before the learned trial Court. 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