Orissa High Court
Jyoti Ranjan Nayak@Kuni vs State Of Odisha on 8 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3443 of 2025
Jyoti Ranjan Nayak@kuni ..... Appellant
Nayak
Represented By Adv. -
Manoranjan Padhy
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Ms.B.K.Sahu, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
08.09.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Perused the CRLMC Application as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present Application under section 482
Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Mudulipada P.S.Case No.38 of 2017 which corresponds to
C.T.Case No.131(A) of 2017 now pending in the file of the
learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri for
trial.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset
contended that the Petitioner along with some other co-
accused persons were shown as accused in Mudulipada
P.S.Case No.38 of 2017 for commission of alleged offences
under sections 20(b) (ii) (C) 29 of N.D.P.S.Act. Referring to
the factual background of the present case, learned counsel
for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has been
implicated in the present case on the basis of co-accused
statement. He further contended that two other co-accused
persons from whose possession recovery has been made
have already been acquitted as they have already faced the
trial in the meantime. So far the present Petitioner is
concerned, he has been taken into custody in connection
with the present case. He further submitted that since
nothing has been recovered from the exclusive and
conscious possession of the Petitioner and since the
Petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of the co-
accused statement, neither the bar under section 37 of the
NDPS Act would be attracted to the case of the Petitioner,
nor can the statement of co-accused persons be used
against the Petitioner. In this context learned counsel for the
Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu
reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. On such ground, learned
counsel for the Petitioner prays for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other
hand objected to the prayer made in the present CRLMC
application. Further, she submitted that although the
Petitioner was initially not named in the F.I.R., however
subsequently he has been implicated on the basis of co-
accused statement. She further submitted that during the
course of investigation certain materials were collected
which indicate that the Petitioner was involved in the
present crime. Learned Additional Government Advocate
further submitted that the Petitioner remained as absconder
for which reason the trial was split up in respect of the co-
accused persons and the trial has already been concluded.
In view of the aforesaid conduct of the accused, learned
Additional Government Advocate contended that this is not
a fit case where this Court can exercise its inherent power.
Therefore, learned Additional Government Advocate
submitted that the application submitted by the Petitioner is
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record
as well as the background facts of the present case, further
taking into consideration the submissions of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that bar under section 37 of the
NDPS Act is not attracted to the case of the Petitioner and
the co-accused statement cannot be used against the
Petitioner in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu
reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1, this Court although is not
inclined to interfere with the matter, however the present
CRLMC application is being disposed of by granting liberty
to the Petitioner to move an application before the trial
Court. In such eventuality, learned trial court shall do well to
consider the bail application of the Petitioner taking into
consideration the aforesaid observation made by this Court
and strictly in accordance with law. In the event the
Petitioner moves an application for bail within two weeks
from today, learned trial court shall do well to dispose of the
application as expeditiously as possible preferably within
two weeks from the date of filing such application.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction the CRLMC
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
RKS
Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary
