IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.13039 of 2025 Shankar Singh @ …. Petitioner Shankar Singh Chouhan @ Sankarsing Chouhan Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. N. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

Order 11.12.2025 No.

02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.105 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Special Judge, Phulbani, arising out of Phulbani Sadar P.S. Case No.88 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable under Sections

20(b)(ii)C/25/29 of the NDPS Act.

3. The Petitioner along with the co-accused are alleged to be involved in the transportation of the contraband (Ganja) to the tune of 130 kgs.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the basis of the implication is on account of the co-accused statement and as the three named co-accused who faced trial have been acquitted by the judgment dated 23.10.2025 by the Special Judge-Addl. Sessions Judge, Phulbani, Dist-Kandhamal in CT No.105 of 2024. Hence, the Petitioner may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail referring to the provisions as contained under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1 and also submits that since admittedly charge sheet was filed citing the Petitioner as an absconder and keeping in view the quantity of contraband seized, the Petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail pre-

arrest bail.

6. The rival contentions had to be examined in the light of the judgment of the acquittal of the co-accused at Annexure-2 who were nabbed at the spot.

7. On consideration of the evidence and materials on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the co- accused, inter alia, for infraction of Section 57 of NDPS Act² For convenience of reference Paragraph-11 of

the judgment of acquittal which has a direct bearing on 1 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(2 of 1974)3,—

(a) xxx xxx (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 2[offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—

(i)xxx xxx (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

the prayer of the Petitioner to be released on pre-arrest bail is extracted hereunder:-

“In this particular case, the informant had seized the contraband ganja and had also apprehended the accused persons, but he has not submitted any such compliance as per Sec.57 of the NDPS Act. The I.O though had given the detail report but he in his evidence has deposed that he had given the said report on 13.05.2024. The Ext.P-24 also reflects the same. So the full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure was not made within 48 hours as mandated U/s. 57 of the NDPS Act. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove the compliance of the Sec. 57 of the NDPS Act.”

8. This Court is of the considered view that infraction of Section 57 of NDPS Act² is an incurable one and applies in equal measures to co-accused irrespective of the fact whether he is in custody or not.

9. It is not in dispute that the implication of the Petitioner is on account of the co-accused statement and the said co-accused having been acquitted inter alia, on the ground of infraction of Section 57 of NDPS Act², this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.

10. Since in the context of violation of section 57 of the NDPS Act as noted by the learned trial Judge, it cannot be said that there is any prima facie case against the present Petitioner and taking into account

2 57. Repor