Bapina Patra@Bapi Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 11^th August, 2025 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.02 of 2025 arising out of Special G.R. No.23 of 2024 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kujanga, whereby, an application under Section 503 BNSS moved by him seeking release and interim custody of the seizure cash of Rs.5, 58, 400/- recovered in Paradeep P.S. Case No.133 dated 19^th May, 2024 was declined.

¶17

Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure of the cash was made from the house of the

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

petitioner, whereas, the contraband Ganja of 1 Kg 840 grams was recovered from his shop. The further submission is that without any rhyme or reason, the local police made the seizure of the cash in connection with the case and therefore, such an application was moved under Section 503 BNSS but it has led to the passing of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 which is, hence, liable to be interfered with followed by the consequential direction issued in that regard.

¶20

Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the alleged seizure of the cash has been made from the house of the petitioner, who is alleged of being involved in selling contraband substance for quite some time as made to reveal from the FIR i.e. Annexure-2 and therefore, the learned court below did not commit any error in declining interim release and custody of the same in favour of the petitioner, who is an accused, as from him, 1 Kg 840 grams of contraband Ganja was seized.

¶21

Perused the FIR at Annexure-2. A copy of the chargesheet dated 31^st July, 2025 is produced by Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is gone through. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with the seizure memos and other relevant documents are also produced for the Court’s perusal.

¶22

The contention of Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no any connection with regard to the

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

seizure of the cash as against the recovery of the contraband Ganja, hence, therefore, the same could not have been seized by the local police. The further submission is that the house of the petitioner is at a distance of 3 KM from the shop, where the seizure of the Ganja has been made. Under such circumstances, it is claimed that the alleged seizure of the cash is illegal. The contention of is that the petitioner is a business man and was in possession of the cash at the relevant point of time, which has led to the seizure of the same. The State’s response is that there has been a nexus between the seizure and recovery of contraband Ganja and therefore, the cash should not be released in favour of the petitioner and it has rightly been declined by the learned court below vide Annexure-1.

¶25

However, on a bare perusal of the chargesheet and other relevant documents including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the Court finds that save and except, the recovery made from the house of the petitioner, there is no other material prima facie to suggest that the cash in possession of the petitioner is a crime proceed. The Court, that apart, does not find any such trace of evidence collected during and in course of investigation and detailed in the chargesheet about the seizure of cash being received by the petitioner as the crime proceed for being involved in selling contraband substance. That apart, the recovery and seizure of contraband Ganja is 1 Kg 840 grams only, which is less than commercial quantity.

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

Considering the fact that the petitioner is a businessman and having a shop near a temple, even though, he is alleged of being involved in selling Ganja but in absence of any such evidence to show and satisfy that the cash was received by him as a crime proceed, merely for the seizure having been made from his house, it was not right and justified on the part of the learned court below to deny its interim release and custody. Just because, the petitioner is allegedly involved in such a nefarious activity does not mean that the cash recovered from the possession of the petitioner becomes a crime proceed. According to the Court, material should be produced to prima facie prove and establish the fact that the cash was being found in possession of the petitioner as a crime proceed, which is conspicuously absent even by considering the chargesheet and other relevant documents filed therewith. In other words, the Court is of the humble view that even though the cash was recovered and seized and shown to have been in connection with the case, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the impugned order at Annexure-1 cannot be justified and hence, it shall have to be interfered with.

¶28

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶29

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 11^th August, 2025 at Annexure-1 in Criminal Misc. Case No.02 of 2025 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kujanga corresponding to Special G.R. No.23 of 2024 is

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

TUDU

¶32

hereby set aside with a direction to release the seizure cash in the interim custody of the petitioner subject to suitable conditions imposed.

¶33