Disposed¶30

Dinabandhu Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Nov 2025ABLAPL/1090/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC, ABLAPL 1090/2024, 10.11.2025, V. Narasingh J — anticipatory/pre-arrest bail denied, repeat application after earlier refusal (ABLAPL 641/2022, 03.02.2022); NDPS case (Special NDPS Case 74/2021, Kantamal PS Case 161/2021), S.20(a)(i) NDPS Act + S.27(1) Orissa Forest Act; cannabis/opium cultivation in reserve forest area; charge sheet filed 09.08.2023; counsel claimed S.37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS rigors not attracted; liberty to surrender and seek regular bail, same-day disposal sought, subject to antecedent verification.

What did the court decide?

This Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioners, considering that the cultivation was admittedly being done in reserve forest area. ¶27

Dinabandhu Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners should be protected by pre-arrest bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.74 of 2021 (Kantamal P.S. Case No.161 of 2021), being their second application to this Court after the charge sheet was filed.

¶18

Court's answer

This Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioners, considering that the cultivation was admittedly being done in reserve forest area.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In the event the Petitioners surrender before the learned Court in seisin and move an application for their release on bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit, with a request to the learned Court in seisin to endeavour to dispose of it on the same day, following due procedure of law and subject to verification of criminal antecedent.

¶27

Key takeaways

Ground recorded for refusing pre-arrest protection: the cultivation in question was admittedly being carried out in reserve forest area.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused (second attempt) — High Court of Orissa, Justice V. Narasingh, order dated 10.11.2025 in ABLAPL No.1090 of 2024 (Dinabandhu Sahu & Ors. v. State of Odisha): Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in Special (NDPS) Case No.74 of 2021 (Kantamal P.S. Case No.161 of 2021) under Sections 20(a)(i) NDPS Act r/w Section 27(1) Orissa Forest Act; an earlier application (ABLAPL No.641 of 2022) had been refused on 03.02.2022 and the charge sheet was filed on 09.08.2023. Counsel argued no embargo on successive applications and that Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS rigors were inapplicable; the State opposed. Noting the cultivation was in reserve forest area, the Court declined pre-arrest bail, but directed that if the Petitioners surrender and apply for bail before the Court in seisin, it shall be considered on its own merit, preferably disposed the same day, subject to verification of criminal antecedents. Application disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No. 1090 of 2024

¶3

1. Dinabandhu Sahu

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

2. Bhubana Mendili

¶6

3. Sudarsana Mendili

¶7

4. Kumara Pradhan @ Raj Kumar Pradhan

¶8

Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate

¶9

-versus-

¶10

State of Odisha

¶11

…. Opposite Party

¶12

Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA

¶13

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶14

10.11.2025

¶15

Order No.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶17

03.

¶18

The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.74 of 2021 pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kantamal, arising out of Kantamal P.S. Case No.161 of 2021 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act read with Section 27(1) of the Orissa Forest Act.

¶19

This is the second journey of the Petitioners to this Court.

¶20

Admittedly, by order dated 03.02.2022 in ABLAPL No.641 of 2022 this Court was not inclined to

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

entertain the pre-arrest bail of the present Petitioners.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that there is no embargo for filing successive bail application and it is further submitted that since in the meanwhile charge sheet has already been submitted on 09.08.2023, custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not warranted. Hence, the Petitioners may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

¶24

And, it is also stated that the Petitioners have no criminal proclivity and since the rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the case at hand, the Petitioners may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

¶25

Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State.

¶26

Admittedly, the cultivation was being done in reserve forest area.

¶27

Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail. However, in the event the Petitioners surrender before the learned Court in seisin in the aforesaid case and move an application for their release on bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit and the learned Court in seisin is requested to make an endeavor to dispose of the same on the same day

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

needless to state after following the due procedure of law subject to verification of criminal antecedent.

¶30