IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

Pranaya Rath

(In BLAPL No.12058 of 2025)

Maina Begum

(In BLAPL No.12282 of 2025)

Satyalochan Sahoo

(In BLAPL No. 12357 of 2025)

… Petitioners

Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate

(In BLAPL No. 12058 of 2025)

Mr. P.S. Das, Advocate

(In BLAPL No. 12282 of 2025)

Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate

(In BLAPL No. 12357 of 2025)

-versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party

Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER(ORAL)

Order No. 13.01.2026

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Since these three bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties.

3. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with TR Case No. 123 of 2025 arising out of Bolagarh PS Case No.256 of 2025 pending in the file of learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 21(B)/21(C)/29 of the NDPS

Act r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act, on the main allegation of jointly possessing 314.97 Grams of Brown Sugar.

4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 12058 of 2025 submits that neither any Contraband article was recovered from the Petitioner nor was he found involved in this case, rather the Petitioner has been implicated in this case merely because of his presence at the spot. Accordingly, Mr. Chand prays to grant bail to the Petitioner.

4.1. Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 12282 of 2025 submits that the Petitioner is an innocent lady and she has got no connection in this case, rather she being the wife of the principal accused has been unfortunately entangled in this case and, therefore, the Petitioner may kindly be granted bail.

4.2. Mr. Asuthosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 12357 of 2025 submits that in fact it’s a false case manufactured against the Petitioner and even if the materials on record are taken into consideration, the Petitioner being found in possession of 15 Grams of Brown sugar, he may kindly be released on bail.

4.3. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by placing the materials on record submits that since the investigation is going on, it would be difficult to say that as to which Petitioners were possessing how much quantity of Contraband article, but fact remains that commercial quantity of Contraband article(Brown sugar) having already been recovered, the Petitioners are supposed to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, failing which the bail application of the Petitioners may kindly be rejected.

5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the Petitioners for remaining present in and around the house of the main accused Babul @ Mir Aktaulla and a total quantity of 314.97 Grams of Brown Sugar has been recovered in this case, but it is advanced for some of the Petitioners that they being not found in possession with Contraband article, the bar as provided U/S. 37 of NDPS Act would not be attracted, however, this Court is not persuaded to accept such submission at this stage, since the Petitioners have not only been implicated with the penal section, but also with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which speaks about the criminal conspiracy and abetment and, therefore, the Petitioners in order to being successful to secure their liberty have to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, which prescribes that no person accused of offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where Public Prosecutor opposes such bail application; unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and he is unlikely to commit offence while on