Surendra Ghadei vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3910 Ori

Orissa High Court

Surendra Ghadei vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 27 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                            BLAPL No. 2415 of 2026

                              Surendra Ghadei                        ........    Petitioner(s)
                                                                Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, Adv.
                                                    -Versus-
                              State of Odisha                   ..........     Opposite Party(s)
                                                                  Mr. Raj Bhushan Das, ASC

                                         CORAM:
                                         DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                    ORDER

27.04.2026 Order No.

01.

FIR Dated Police Case No. Sections Station and Courts' No. Name 71 19.11.2025 Excise T.R. Case Sections Nimapara No.7 of 2026 21(b) of Range pending in NDPS Act Puri the court of learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner being in custody in Excise Nimapara Range

Puri P.R. No. 71 of 2025-26 corresponding to T.R. Case No.7

of 2026 pending in the court of learned Additional District

Judge, Nimapara, registered for the alleged commission of

offences under Sections 21(b) of NDPS Act, has filed this

petition for his release on bail.

4. The brief fact of the case is that on 19.11.2025 at about 8.35

A.M., the Inspector of Excise, Nimapara Range, Puri along

with other staff, was patrolling at Charichhak P.S. area. They

noticed that a person was trying to escape suspiciously,

seeing their vehicle. They detained that person and, on

search, recovered 117 grams of heroin from the possession of

that person. Hence, this case.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is

absolutely no material available on record remotely

suggesting that the alleged contraband brown sugar has been

seized from the exclusive and conscious possession of the

Petitioner. He further contends that out of suspicion and by

conducting a perfunctory inquiry, the excise officials have

arraigned the Petitioner in the alleged occurrence. The

Petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2025. Hence, he submits

that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer

for bail stating that the brown sugar seized from the

possession of the Petitioner is greater than the small quantity.

7. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation,

character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner and the

stringent punishment provided and also the statutory bar to

grant bail under Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act in an offence

of this nature without recording the satisfaction that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not

guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such

offence, which is not possible to record in this case, the

Petitioner's prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, their

prayer for bail stands rejected. However, the Petitioner is

granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of

charge.

8. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed.

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu