IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.12954 of 2025 Rahul Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. -

Tanmaya Kumar Mohanty -versus-

State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

18.12.2025 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party.

Perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The present bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with T.R No-473/2024, arising out of P.R No-80/2024-25, pending in the Court of learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda, At-Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 21(C)

of the N.D.P.S. Act.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any of the Bench of this Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contended that the Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 01.09.2024. In the meantime the investigation has been concluded and the final P.R. has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to the allegation made in the prosecution report submitted that a total quantity of 54 grams of brown sugar has been allegedly recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. He further contended that since the quantity of contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity, the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted. He further contended that the petitioner belongs to the locality, therefore there is no chance of absconding. He further submitted that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and condition which the Petitioner undertakes to abide by while on bail.

5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Party, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility that he might be involved in similar criminal offences. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that considering the nature of allegation and the contraband used in the present case, the release of the petitioner would be a threat to the society. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case and further keeping the view the period of detention of the Petitioner in jail custody and the fact that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions.

7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.35,000/-(Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. 8. It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper.

9. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the Petitioner is having any criminal antecedent of similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked.

10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

Judge S.K. Rout Signature Not Verified Digit