Orissa High Court
Judhistira Rana vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 22 September, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 10412 of 2025
Judhistira Rana .... Petitioner
Mr. A. R. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. N. Das, ASC
ABLAPL No. 10428 of 2025
Purastam Rana .... Petitioner
Mr. A. R. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. N. Das, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 16.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 22.09.2025
V. Narasingh, J.
1. Since both the ABLAPLs relate to the same
FIR, on the consent of the learned counsel for the
Petitioners and learned counsel for the State, they
are taken up together and are disposed of by this
common order.
2. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the
Petitioners and Mr. Das, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with C.T.(N) Case No.76 of 2024 pending
in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Phulbani, arising out of Gochhapada P.S. Case
No.51 of 2024 for commission of offence punishable
under Sections 20(b)(ii)C/29/25 of the NDPS Act. The
allegation against the Petitioners is that they along
with the co-accused who faced trial are involved in
the transportation of contraband (Ganja) to the tune
of 305kgs.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel
for the Petitioners that the implication of the
Petitioners is on account of co-accused statement and
since the said co-accused have since been acquitted
by judgment dated 22.08.2025 by the Special Judge,
Kandhamal, Phulbani, in Crl. Trial No.76 of 2024,
inter alia, on the ground of violation of the provisions
of Sections 55 of NDPS Act, the Petitioners, who do
not have any criminal proclivity, may be protected by
pre-arrest bail.
For convenience of reference Section 55 of
the NDPS Act is extracted hereunder;
"xxx xxx xxx
55. Police to take charge of articles
seized and delivered.-- An officer-in-
charge of a police station shall take charge
of and keep in safe custody, pending the
orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized
under this Act within the local area of that
police station and which may be delivered
to him, and shall allow any officer who may
accompany such articles to the police
station or who may be deputed for the
purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or
to take samples of and from them and all
samples so taken shall also be sealed with a
seal of the officer-in-charge of the police
station.
XXX XXX XXX"
5. So far as violation of the Section 55 of the
NDPS Act is concerned, the learned Special Judge
observed thus;
"XXX XXX XXX
From the facts as discussed above, it can
be safely concluded that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the safe
custody of alleged contraband ganja from
the spot till the sample reached at the office
of Chemical Examiner.
XXX XXX XXX"
6. Referring to such finding of the learned Special
Judge, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners that in view of the same, custodial
interrogation of the Petitioners is not warranted and
they ought not to be remanded to custody as charge
sheet has been filed.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further
submitted that the implication of the Petitioners are
on account of co-accused statement and since the co-
accused who have since been acquitted, the
Petitioners ought not to be taken into custody.
8. Such submission is opposed by the learned
counsel for the State, Mr. Das, inter alia, on the
ground that the charge sheet is filed on 23.04.2025,
under Sections 20(b)(ii)C, 29 and 25 of NDPS Act
citing the Petitioners as accused and their status have
been shown as absconders and so far as the trial is
concerned, the evidence on record is qua the
accused, who faced trial and as such, the same ought
not to ennure to the benefit of the accused like the
Petitioners who are absconders. Hence, seeks
dismissal of the ABLAPL. He also relies on the bar
under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act to resist
the prayer of the Petitioners. In this context learned
counsel for the State relies on the dictum of the Apex
Court in the case of State by the Inspector of
Police vrs. B. Ramu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073.
9. In the recent pronouncement the Apex Court
in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in,
2023 SCC Online SC 452, adopting the course of
continuing Mandamus has clarified that the principles
as set out in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vrs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and another,
reported in, (2022) 10 SCC 51 shall apply in equal
measure to application for anticipatory bail. The said
finding of the Apex Court is extracted hereunder for
convenience of ready reference:
"XXX XXX XXX
....We would like to clarify that what we have
enunciated qua bail would equally apply to
anticipatory bail cases. Anticipatory bail after
all is one of the species of a bail.
XXX XXX XXX"
10. The rival submissions have to be evaluated on
the basis of clarificatory observation of the Apex
Court extracted hereinabove.
11. There is no cavil about the proposition of
evaluation of evidence qua the accused facing trial.
But, at the same time this court cannot lose sight of
the special features of evidence on record in a case
under the NDPS Act in the light of the stipulations as
contained relating to safe custody of the contraband
as envisaged under Section 55 of the NDPS Act.
Ex-facie the violation of Section 55 of NDPS
Act as noted by the learned Trial Court cannot be
confined to the accused, who is in custody, in view of
the unique nature of the statutory provisions of the
NDPS Act and in the factual matrix of the case at
hand.
12. As such, the submission of the learned State
counsel that the finding of the learned Trial Court
regarding the violations as noted qua the seized
contraband adverted to hereinabove, cannot be relied
upon by an absconding accused, has to be negated.
13. On a conspectus of the materials and
evidence, keeping in view the violations relating to
Section 55 of the NDPS Act as extracted above,
taking into account the basis of the implication being
on account of co-accused statement, such co-accused
having since been acquitted, in the light of the
Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan
Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021)
4 SCC 1 and the State of Haryana Vrs. Samarth
Kumar, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 2087, this
Court directs that on surrendering within three weeks
hence and moving for bail, the Petitioners shall be
released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on
such terms as deemed just and proper subject to
verification of criminal antecedent of any nature.
14. The ABLAPLs are accordingly disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 22nd September, 2025/Ayesha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
