Srabana Baliarsingh vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 9352 Ori

Orissa High Court

Srabana Baliarsingh vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 24 October, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   BLAPL No.8547 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
   BNSS).

   Srabana Baliarsingh                 ...          Petitioner
                            -versus-
   State of Odisha                     ...     Opposite Party

   For Petitioner          : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate

   For Opposite Parties    : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                DATE OF HEARING : 24.10.2025
                DATE OF JUDGMENT : 24.10.2025

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by

the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Pattapur

PS Case No. 425 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No.67

of 2024(N) pending in the Court of learned Sessions

Judge, Berhampur for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the main allegation of

transporting 214Kgs 200Grams of contraband ganja in a

Bolero Pick-up vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-M-0781.

2. Heard Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. On

being queried about the criminal antecedent of the

petitioner, Mr. Bose, however, voluntarily submits to

withhold bail to the petitioner, if he is found to have any

criminal antecedent of similar nature for commission of

offence under NDPS Act.

3. Besides other grounds, Mr. Bose has primarily

concentrated his submission for grant of bail to the

accused-petitioner for want of submission of CE report.

True it is that the provision of Sec. 170 of CrPC/190 of

BNSS interalia mandates for forwarding of the accused

under custody to a magistrate empowered to take

cognizance of offence upon a police report, if there is

sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds, but Sec.173(2)

of CrPC/193(3) of BNSS prescribes that as soon as the

investigation is completed, the officer-in-charge of the

police station shall forward(, including through electronic

communication as in Sec. 193(3) of BNSS) to a

magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence

on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the

State Government(as the State Government may, by

Rules provide, only as in Sec. 193(3) of BNSS) stating-

(a) the names of the parties;

(b) the nature of the information;

(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;

(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

(f) whether he (the accused) has been released on his bond or bail bond (and, if so, whether with or without sureties only as in Sec. 173(2) of CrPC);

(g) whether he (the accused) has been forwarded in custody under section 170;

(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, or 376E of the Indian Penal Code(Secs. 64/65/66/ 67/68/70/71 of BNS).

              (Only in the case of Sec. 193 of BNSS)
           (i) The    sequence of custody       in   case   of
                     electronic device;

#(ii) The police officer shall, within a period of 90 days, inform the progress of investigation by any means including through electronic communication to the informant or the victim;

(iii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide, the action taken by him, to

the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of offence was first given.

3.1. Similarly, Sec.173(5) of the CrPC/193(6) of

BNSS prescribes that when such report is in respect of a

case to which Sec.170 CrPC/190 of BNSS applies, the

police officer shall forward to the magistrate along with

the report-

(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;

(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of CrPC/180 of BNSS of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.

A careful and cumulative reading of the

aforesaid provisions as mandated under law, it appears

that no where it has been stated about submission of CE

report to be mandatory, but it is sufficient, if the

requirements of Sec.173(2) of CrPC/193(3) of BNSS and

Sec.173(5) of the CrPC/193(6) of BNSS are complied with

for the purpose of submission of charge sheet, however,

it has been stated in Sec.173(5)(a) of the CrPC/193(6)(a)

of the BNSS that the police officer shall forward to the

magistrate along with the report all documents or

relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution

proposes to rely other than those already sent to the

Magistrate during investigation. In a case for commission

of offence under NDPS Act, more particularly when the

investigation is conducted by police official, CE report

plays a significant role because the police officer are not

experience enough to conclusively state without

forensic/chemical test of the articles that the article(s)

which they recovered is/are particular contraband

article(s) as contemplated in NDPS Act.

4. Be that as it may, whether submission of CE

report is mandatory to construe the charge-sheet a

complete one is a question pending before the larger

Bench in the Apex Court in the case of Hanif Ansari vrs.

State(NCT) of Delhi; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 537, but

some of the High Courts are of the view that charge-

sheet without CE report in a NDPS case is incomplete

charge-sheet so as to make the accused entitled for a

default bail. Since that issue has not been raised in this

bail application, this Court, however, does not direct itself

to answer such question more particularly when a

reference in that regard is pending before the Apex

Court. However, it is not disputed in this case that the

preliminary charge-sheet has already been submitted on

20.03.2025 without the CE report and the learned trial

Court has made sufficient endeavor to procure the same,

which is borne out from the order sheet as produced by

learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also not disputed

that till today, the CE report is yet to be received and the

trial Court is yet to take cognizance of offence for that

reason. On the other hand, the petitioner is in custody

since 22.09.2024, but in the meanwhile more than a year

has elapsed, however, the uncertainty is still there before

the trial Court from proceeding further in this case for

want of CE report. Right to speedy trial is the

fundamental right of the accused as guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but there is a

statutory embargo in Sec.37 of NDPS Act for grant of bail

in a case for commission of offence under NDPS Act

involving commercial quantity. In the sequence of the

events, it is not known as to when the trial will

commence inasmuch as the CE report is yet to be

submitted. However, there are 13 charge-sheeted

witnesses and the trial would definitely take some time,

even if it commences some times after receipt of the CE

report. In such situation, the statutory embargo cannot

override the constitutional guarantee as provided to the

accused for right to speedy trial.

5. Besides, denial of bail only to keep the accused

in confinement without any trial would definitely amount

to deprivation of his personal liberty as guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In such situation

and taking into account the materials placed on record,

since CE report having not yet been produced in this

case, this Court feels that the conditions of Sec.37 of

NDPS Act may be dispensed with for the petitioner at this

stage, provided the petitioner is not having criminal

antecedent of similar nature.

6. For the reason stated hereinabove and taking

into account the custody period of the petitioner without

any progress in the case, even if after one year of

custody of the petitioner for want of CE report, this Court

without expressing any view on merit admits the

petitioner to bail, but subject to verification of his criminal

antecedent of similar nature.

7. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner

stand allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail

on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh) only with two solvent sureties each for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin

of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and

proper by it.

In terms of the specific submission advanced for

the petitioner, the benefit of the aforesaid order shall not

be extended to the petitioner without seeking leave of

this Court, if he is having criminal antecedent of similar

nature for commission of offences under NDPS Act.

8. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed

of.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Oct-2025 20:52:39 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th day of October, 2025/Jayakrushna