IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

ABLAPL No. 1321 of 2024

1. Deben dra Mahakul …. Petitioners

2. Rajendra Mahakul

Mr. J.K. Panda, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

08.01.2026

Order No.

02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and

learned counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Spl. (NDPS) Case No.146 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kantamal, Boudh arising out of Manamunda P.S. Case No.133 of 2023 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act read with Section

420/468 of IPC.

3. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner does not want to press the application for pre-arrest bail in respect of Petitioner

No.1 (Debendra Mahakul).

4. Accordingly, the ABLAPL in respect of Petitioner No.1 (Debendra Mahakul) stands disposed of as not pressed.

5. Thus, the ABLAPL is confined to Petitioner No.2 (Rajendra Mahakul).

6. It is submitted that the accusation against the Petitioner is on account of the statement of the co-

accused, namely, Harish Kumar Jaitwar.

And, it is stated that the said co-accused, who faced trial, has since been acquitted by judgment dated 21.03.2025 in Special Case (NDPS) No.146 of 2023. Copy of the said judgment submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is taken on record.

Copy thereof has already been served on the learned counsel for the State.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the acquittal of the co-accused is on account of non-compliance of Sections 42, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act.

8. In this context, attention of this Court is drawn to para-16 of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder;

“xxx xxx xxx

16. It has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the offence under NDPS Act carries severe punishment, the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt in respect of material particulars leaving no room for any suspicion.

In view of the inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, non- production of brass seal in the Court so also non-compliance of section 42, 55 and 57 of NDPS Act, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to bring home the charge leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

P.W.10 has stated that the accused has displayed a fake registration number instead of the original registration number in the offending vehicle for the purpose of cheating. The fake registration number display plate was not produced before the Court. The photograph of the offending vehicle displaying the fake registration number can also be produced instead of the display plate in token of the plea that the accused has affixed the fake registration number on the offending vehicle. So, I don’t find any material to connect the accused for commission of offence U/s.468 of IPC.

xxx xxx xxx”

9. Learned counsel for the State seeks an adjournment to address this Court as to whether the judgment in respect of the co-accused would ennure to the benefit of the present Petitioner, who is an absconder keeping in view the peculiar features of NDPS Act.

10. List this matter on 27.01.2026.

11. Interim order passed on 20.02.2024 shall continue till the next date in respect of Petitioner No.2 (Rajendra Mahakul).

12. Learned counsel for the State is called upon to intimate the concerned I.O. that there is no pre- arrest bail application pending in this Court relating to Petitioner No.1 (Debendra Mahakul).

(V. NARASINGH Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jan-2026 18:39:13