Brishnu Ray@Bishnu Ray v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Jan 2026CRLMC/4411/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, CRLMC No.4411 of 2025, Sibo Sankar Mishra, J., order dated 13.01.2026; petitioner Brishnu Ray @ Bishnu Ray; NDPS Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29, 42, 50, 57; Umerkote P.S. Case No.82 of 2021; T.R. Case No.05 of 2021; co-accused acquitted 29.09.2023; absconder; stay of NBW execution six weeks; surrender; bail plea before trial court; State of Odisha; AGA Partha Sarathi Nayak; counsel Anirudha Das.

What did the court decide?

Stay of execution of the NBW (issued 09.12.2021 in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021) for six weeks; petitioner directed to surrender within that period with no further extension; liberty to plead bail before the trial court relying on the acquittal judgment dated 29.09.2023. ¶¶26

Brishnu Ray@Bishnu Ray Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the coercive process (execution of the NBW issued on 09.12.2021) against the petitioner, shown as an absconder, should be stayed given the acquittal of his four co-accused. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the entire sequence of events and the acquittal of the four co-accused, the execution of the NBW issued by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Umerkote in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021 against the petitioner on 09.12.2021 is stayed for six weeks.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

Within the six-week period the petitioner shall surrender and resort to the remedy available to him; no further extension for surrendering shall be granted.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

It is open to the petitioner to raise a plea of bail before the learned trial Court relying upon the trial Court's judgment dated 29.09.2023 in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021 (including its findings on non-compliance of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act).ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

N.D.P.S. (ganja) prosecution arising out of F.I.R. dated 28.02.2021 in Umerkote P.S. Case No.82 of 2021 (Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 N.D.P.S. Act): petitioner Brishnu Ray @ Bishnu Ray, an absconder, whose trial had been split, sought relief after his four co-accused were acquitted by judgment dated 29.09.2023 in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021, the trial Court having found non-compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act and want of coordination between PW No.10 and PW No.18. The High Court of Orissa (Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.), disposing of CRLMC No.4411 of 2025 on 13.01.2026, stayed execution of the NBW issued against the petitioner on 09.12.2021 for six weeks, required him to surrender within that window (with no further extension), and left him free to plead bail before the learned trial Court relying upon the acquittal judgment. CRLMC disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.4411 of 2025

¶3

Brishnu Ray @ Bishnu Ray …. Petitioner(s)

¶4

Mr. Anirudha Das, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

03.

1. Heard.

13.01.2026

2. Along with four other accused persons, the petitioner was implicated in the F.I.R. dated 28.02.2021 in Umerkote P.S. Case No.82 of 2021 for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 17.08.2021. The present petitioner has been an absconder. Therefore, the trial got spilted up qua the other accused. The four other accused persons those who have faced trial, have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide a detailed judgment dated 29.09.2023 in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021. The learned trial Court while acquitting the co-accused persons inter alia observed as under:-

¶16

“23. The prosecution examined other witnesses to establish the fact of seizure of ganja. The

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution at all. The official witnesses have stated about recovery and seizure of the contraband ganja. The principal witness in this case are PW No.10 and PW No.18. As discussed above, there is no coordination between the evidence of PW No.10 and PW No.18. PW No.10 did not comply the requirement of Sec.50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. PW No.18 failed to comply Sec. 42 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view to hold that the evidence of PW No.10 and PW No.18 are not sufficient to hold that the requirement of the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act are complied in this case.”

¶19

3. Relying upon the aforementioned observations made by

¶20

the learned trial Court in its judgment dated 29.09.2023, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted case on record that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to comply the statutory safeguard contemplated under Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the advantage of the same goes to the benefit of the present petitioner. He further submits that the learned trial Court has issued coercive process against the petitioner because he was shown as an absconder. Hence, he assails the same.

¶21

4. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶22

the State submits that since the petitioner is an absconder, this Court should not give indulgence to him. Due to his absconding, the case

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

was spilted up and the trial of other co-accused persons have been concluded.

¶25

5. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the entire sequence of event and the fact that the other co-accused persons have been acquitted, the execution of NBW issued by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Umerkote in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021 against the petitioner on 09.12.2021 shall remain stayed for a period of six weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner shall surrender and resort to the remedy available to him. No further extension for surrendering shall be granted. It is open for the petitioner to raise plea of bail before the learned trial Court by relying upon the judgment dated 29.09.2023 in in T.R. Case No.05 of 2021.

¶26

6. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶27

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶28

Swarna

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Jan-2026 19:43:16

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Brishnu Ray@Bishnu Ray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brishnu Ray@Bishnu Ray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Barik @ Santosh Bariki Vs State of Odisha

Gourav Kumar Agrawal@Kallu Vs Anil Kumar Agrawal

Ranjit Vs State

Bhima Vs State

Kaushik Mandal Vs State of Odisha