Orissa High Court
Mangaraj Khilla @ Khillo vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 17 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3723 of 2025
Mangaraj Khilla @ Khillo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Jugala Kishore Panda
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. B.Sahu, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 17.09.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the
prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
the petitioner seeks for quashing of the entire criminal case in
T.R. Case No.91 of 2024 arising out of Machhakund P.S. Case
No.75 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that he does not want to press this application with liberty to
raise the ground at a later stage by filing an appropriate
application. He further contended that Petitioner has been
implicated in the present case which was registered for
commission of a crime punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the N.D.P.S. Act on the basis of a co-accused statement. He
further submitted that nothing was recovered from the exclusive
and conscious possession of the present Petitioner. Therefore,
the bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be
attracted to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31, submitted that such confessional
statement of the co-accused cannot be used as evidence against
the present Petitioner. On such ground learned counsel for the
Petitioner sought for liberty to surrender before this Court below
and move an application for bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the application filed by the Petitioner. He further contended that
in the event the Petitioner wants to surrender, then it is open to
him to surrender before the court below and move an application
for bail which shall be considered in accordance with law.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, this
Court deems it proper to dispose of the present application with
the liberty as prayed for by the Petitioner. Further, taking into
consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner, he is permitted to surrender before the Court
below and move an application within three weeks from today.
In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider such
application and make every endeavour to dispose of the
application on the same day, strictly on the basis of the materials
on record and by maintaining the principles of parity, if
applicable. Case diary be made available on the date of
surrender.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
CRLMC stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
