IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.13098 of 2025 Sera @ Manorama Nayak …. Petitioner(s)

Mr. Somanath Mitra, Adv.

-versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s)

Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order ORDER No. 19.12.2025 F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. and Sections No. Station Courts’ Name

142 00.00.2025 Khordha Khordha Industrial Sections 21(b)/29 of Industrial Estate P.S. Case the N.D.P.S Act Estate No.142 of 2025 Police corresponding to Station T.R. Case No.61 of

2025 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khordha

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Khordha Industrial Estate P.S. Case No.142 of 2025 corresponding to T.R. Case No.61 of 2025 pending in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khordha registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 21(b)/29 of the N.D.P.S Act, has filed this application for his release on bail.

4. The brief fact of the case is that on 10.06.2025 at about 1.40 P.M. the Sub-Inspector of Police, Industrial Estate Polic Station apprehended the present Petitioner in front of the Kunjbihari temple while she was proceeding towards Gadakhorda carrying a small red color purse. On search, the Sub-Inspector of Police recovered 35 grams of brown sugar from the said purse of the present Petitioner. Accordingly, an F.I.R was lodged in the local Police Station. Upon lodging of the F.I.R and completion of investigation the Petitioner was taken into custody.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is no way connected to the offences alleged against him. The entire story is based on conjecture and surmises. The purse from which the alleged contraband brown sugar has been recovered does not belong to the present Petitioner. He, accordingly, prays for permitting the Petitioner to be released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the present Petitioner. He further submits that such type of offences is not tolerable in a law abiding society. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of Signature Not Verified this BLAPL.

7. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner and the stringent punishment prescribed, this Court is of the view that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner has no role in the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence. The prayer for bail being devoid of any merit stands rejected. 8. Accordingly, this BLAPL is dismissed.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

Judge Ayaskanta Signature Not Verified