IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4057 of 2025 Banty @ Nihar Ranjan …. Petitioner Samal Mr.S.C.Mohapatra, Senior Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr. S.J.Mohanty, ASC BLAPL No.4275 of 2025 Pon @ Manoj Nayak …. Petitioner Mr.P.K.Barik, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr. S.J.Mohanty, ASC BLAPL No.4368 of 2025 Kalia @ Ramesh Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. S.K.Dwibedi, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr. S.J.Mohanty, ASC BLAPL No.4375 of 2025 Kanhu @ Asish Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, Senior Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr. S.J.Mohanty, ASC BLAPL No.4653 of 2025 Litu @ Abhiram Puhan …. Petitioner Mr. P.K.Barik, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr. S.J.Mohanty, ASC CORAM:

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order ORDER No. 09.05.2025

01.

1. In the above noted bail applications, the petitioners are accused in connection with Special Case No.10 of 2025 arising out of Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.164 of 2025 registered for alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Keonjhar. The petitioners had approached the learned Special Judge I/C, Keonjhar praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 10.04.2025 rejected the bail application of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail.

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 91.60 kgs. of contraband ganja was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners is that on 26.03.2025, the IIC, Keonjhar Town P.S. received credible information from the reliable source that, illegal ganja was being transported by a white colour Hyundai Verna Car bearing Regd. No.OD02H-1551 and another Baleno Car bearing Regd. No.OD33AN-3815, which was coming from Kanjipani side and there was possibility to move towards Anandapur side through Keonjhar. They reached near Judiaghati near Bypass and remained watchful. At about 11.15 AM, they could see that one white colour Hyundai Verna Car bearing Regd. No.OD02H-1551 and another Baleno Car bearing Regd. No.OD33AN-3815 were coming from Kanjipani side and seeing the police, they increased the speed of the vehicles and tried their best to escape from the police, but subsequently they were apprehended by the police. On search of the dicky of the vehicles, found pungent and odor smell of contraband articles like ganja was coming from the said vehicles. The complainant along with their staff seized 4 nos. of jari bags containing total 92.60 kgs.

of ganja from the accused persons. Hence, the F.I.R.

4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. P.K. Barik, Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the above cases contended that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that two vehicles, namely, one Hyundai Verna Car and another Baleno Car were intercepted in the above noted cases. In the Baleno Car, four accused persons were travelling and in the Hyundai Verna Car, two accused persons were travelling.

5. It is alleged by the prosecution that 91 kgs. of contraband ganja was seized from both the cars. From perusal of the seizure list and other relevant documents, it reveals that the contraband ganja was recovered from both the cars and it was mixed up and separate packets were made by the police. It is not coming to the fore on the record as to how much quantity of contraband ganja was recovered from which car.

6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate contended that the petitioners have credible defence regarding non-possess