IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 11903 of 2025 Bhabagrahi Digal …. Petitioner Mr. D.J. Sahoo, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING : 16.12.2025 DATE OF ORDER : 22.12.2025 V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Panda, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T.(N) Case No.74 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Special Judge, Phulbani, Kandhamal arising out of Gochhapada P.S. Case No.49 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

3. The allegation against the present Petitioner is that he along with the co-accused Bhujabal Digal were involved in the transportation of contraband (Ganja) in eleven numbers of Poly bags net weight of which was 222 kg 200 grams.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on getting reliable information a raid was conducted and seeing the police personnel both the Petitioner and the co-accused tried to flee from the spot but the raiding party was able to apprehend one of them i.e. co-accused namely Bhujabal Digal. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner and the said Bhujabal Digal, citing the present Petitioner as absconder.

5. The said co-accused Bhujabal Digal faced trial and by judgment dated 24.09.2025 the learned Special Judge-Additional Sessions Judge, Phulbani, District- Kandhamal in C.T. Case No.74 of 2024 acquitted the co-accused Bhujabal Digal.

6. Placing reliance on the said order of acquittal, it is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the sole basis of accusation qua the Petitioner was on account of co-accused statement and the said co-accused having been acquitted, Petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-

arrest bail.

6-A. It is his further submission that if the Petitioner is taken to custody notwithstanding the acquittal of the co-accused, the same would be punitive.

7. It is apt to note that this is the second journey of the Petitioner to this Court. By order dated 29.07.2024 in ABLAPL No.7354 of 2024, this Court while not entertaining the prayer of the Petitioner for pre-arrest bail gave him liberty to surrender and move for bail with the observation that the Petitioner’s prayer for parity shall be considered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh vrs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 keeping in view that the accusation is primarily on account of the co-accused statement.

8. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panda, ASC opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail and it is his submission that in view of the rigors of section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act², in the light of materials on record that the Petitioner decamped and filing of the charge sheet citing as an absconder indicate a strong prima facie case and the acquittal of the co- accused, who faced trial, is irrelevant in respect of the Petitioner, who is an absconder.

8-A. It is submitted with vehemence that granting pre-arrest bail to an accused Petitioner would amount to rewarding him for managing to escape and thereby encouraging lawlessness.

2 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

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

(i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes 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. xxx xxx xxx.”

9. It is trite that there is no embargo for filing successive application for bail more so in case of anticipatory bail. This Cour