Bibhu Nayak @ Naik vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S)
2026 Latest Caselaw 3667 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3667 Ori
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Bibhu Nayak @ Naik vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 21 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                    ABLAPL No.2114 of 2026

                                    Bibhu Nayak @ Naik             ....               Petitioner(s)

                                                                          Mr. Bikash Karna, Adv.

                                                               -versus-
                                    State of Odisha                 ....        Opposite Party(s)

                                                                      Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC

                                           CORAM:
                                           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                                              ORDER

Order No. 21.04.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

3. The Petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection

with Sonepur P.S. Case No.93 of 2022, corresponding to

Special G.R. Case No.23 of 2022, pending in the Court of

learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur for the

alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections

20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, has filed this petition under

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for release on pre-arrest bail.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.05.2022 at

Designation: Senior Stenographer about 6:50 PM, the complainant, being the Sub-Inspector of Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 11:28:36

Police, Sonepur P.S., along with his staff, was engaged in

routine patrolling duty near Patabhadi area under Sonepur

Police Station limits. During the course of patrolling, he

received reliable information that two persons were

proceeding from Kantamal side towards Sonepur in an

Indica car, carrying contraband ganja for the purpose of

illegal sale. Acting upon such information, the complainant

along with his staff immediately proceeded to Ring Road

Chhak and kept surveillance at the spot. At about 7:50 PM,

an Indica car bearing registration No. OR-31-2311 was

noticed coming from Manamunda side at a high speed. On

reasonable suspicion, the said vehicle was intercepted and

detained. Upon search and verification of the vehicle, it was

found to be carrying contraband ganja weighing 72 kg 490

grams. The occupants of the vehicle failed to produce any

valid authority, document, or license in support of

possession or transportation of the said contraband.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that no

incriminating material has been seized from the possession

of the Petitioner, nor is there any evidence on record to

suggest that the Petitioner has abetted the alleged offence.

As such, no offence is made out against the present

Petitioner.

6. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any

evidence establishing conscious possession of the

contraband ganja, the Petitioner cannot be held liable for

any offence under the NDPS Act. The materials on record

clearly indicate that the Petitioner was not present at the

spot at the time of seizure. Moreover, nothing has been

recovered from the conscious possession of the Petitioner.

The alleged contraband was seized from the exclusive

possession of a co-accused, named, Sahadeb Mallik and the

implication of the Petitioner is solely based on the statement

of the said co-accused, which lacks evidentiary value.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that

similarly placed co-accused persons have already been

granted bail in BLAPL No.6457 of 2025 (disposed of on

17.07.2025) and BLAPL No.7061 of 2023 (disposed of on

24.08.2023).

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that

since the charge sheet has already been submitted in this

case, there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence if

released on anticipatory bail.

9. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-

arrest bail.

10. Considering the submissions made, the nature of

allegations, release of the co-accused persons on bail and

keeping in view the surrounding circumstances, this Court

is of the opinion that the Petitioner has made out a case for

grant of pre-arrest bail.

11. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of

the Petitioner in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on

bail on such terms and conditions as the Arresting Officer

deems just and proper, subject to the following conditions:

i. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the

investigation and appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when required;

ii. The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly

induce, threaten or promise any witness

acquainted with the facts of the case;

iii. The Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction

without prior permission of the Court

concerned;