[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Susanta Pradhan vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 23 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2220 of 2026
Susanta Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented by Adv. -
U.C. Jena, A.S.C.
BLAPL No.2996 of 2026
Santosh Naik ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented by Adv. -
U.C. Jena, A.S.C.
BLAPL No.3018 of 2026
Sumanta Naik @ Sumanta ..... Petitioner
Kumar Naik
Represented by Adv. -
Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented by Adv. -
U.C. Jena, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
Page 1 of 4.
ORDER
23.04.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. All these bail applications arising out of the common F.I.R,
therefore, they are heard together and the same are being disposed
of by the following common order.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and
learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Opposite Party. Perused the bail application as well as the F.I.R
and other documents attached to the bail application.
4. The present bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S
has been filed by the Petitioners for regular bail in connection
with C.T. (NDPS) Case No.13 of 2026, arising out of Purunakote
P.S Case No.32 of 2026, pending in the Court of learned Special
Judge, Angul for alleged commission of offence punishable under
Sections 20(b)(ii)C, 18(c), 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier
these matters were not before any other Bench of this Court. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the
Petitioners are in custody since 14.02.2026 in connection with the
present case. He further submitted that although the charge sheet
has not been filed, however, the investigation has progressed
substantially. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further
submitted that as per the prosecution allegation, four persons were
standing on the road while the raiding party recovered 22 kg 90
gms. of ganja and 323 gms of opium from a scooty which was
parked on the road. Accordingly, the Petitioners were entangled
in the present case and they have been taken into custody. He
further submitted that the Petitioners do not have any similar
criminal antecedent. He further submitted that the Petitioners
belong to the locality, therefore, there is no chance of absconding.
On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended
that the Petitioners be released on bail.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opposite Party, on the other hand, opposed the release of
the Petitioners on bail on the ground that in the event the
Petitioners are released on bail, there is a possibility that they
might be involved in similar criminal offences. Learned
Additional Standing Counsel submitted that nature of allegation
and the contraband used in the present case is itself a threat to the
society. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the
Petitioners be rejected at this juncture.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the surrounding
facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the
view that the bar under Section 37 would not be strictly
applicable to the facts of the present case, further keeping the
view the period of detention of the Petitioners in jail custody and
the fact that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal
antecedent, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioners on bail
subject to imposition of stringent conditions.
7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail
in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each
for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over
the matter.
8. It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose
any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. Violation
of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail
application.
9. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioners
is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify
whether the Petitioners are having any criminal antecedent of
similar nature. In the event it is found that the Petitioners are
having any similar criminal antecedent under the offences of
NDPS Act, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked.
10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 24-Apr-2026 19:27:13
