Orissa High Court
CRLMC/1877/2026 of V. BIKASH RAJU Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 25 August 2026
of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1877 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010435552026 V. Bikash Raju ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Hrudananda Mohapatra -versus- State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. -Mr. P.K.Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1877 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010435552026
V. Bikash Raju
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Hrudananda Mohapatra
-versus-
State of Odisha
.....
Opposite Party
Represented by Adv. -Mr.
P.K.Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
25.08.2026 Order No.
03.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner, who apprehends his arrest in connection with Brahmagiri P.S. Case No.90 dated 03.05.2023 registered for commission of an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)/C of the NDPS Act read with Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and such F.I.R. corresponds to G.R. Case No.100 of 2023, now pending before the learned 1st Addl. Judge Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Puri, has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged on 03.05.2023, Brahmagiri P.S.
case was registered. He further contended that the Petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. In the meantime, the investigation has been partly concluded and the preliminary charge sheet has been filed keeping the investigation open. It was also contended that despite three years having been passed from the date of commission of crime, no final charge sheet has been filed as of yet. He further submitted that although the Petitioner has not been charge-sheeted, he is apprehending his arrest as he has been named by some of the co-accused persons as owner of the vehicle which was involved in the alleged crime. Learned counsel for the Petitioner specifically argued that neither was the Petitioner present at the spot of occurrence, nor was any contraband article seized from his exclusive and conscious possession. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted to the facts of the Petitioner’s case.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner apprehends that he might be implicated in the present crime on the basis of the fact that he happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle which was used in the alleged crime. He further submitted that neither was the Petitioner’s vehicle involved in the alleged crime nor is the Petitioner in any manner connected with or involved in the commission of the said crime. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that necessary protection be granted to the Petitioner against any police action likely to befall upon the Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the application it appears that the Petitioner has not been named in the charge-sheet. Therefore, there is no apprehension, of his arrest. He further contended that the investigation is still open and that it is open to the Petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and clarify his position before the Investigating Officer. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, further keeping in view the specific prayer made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is permitted to surrender before the Court below and move an application for bail within two weeks. In the event any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of on the very same day. The case diary be made available on the date of surrender on an application being filed by the Petitioner prior to his surrender. While considering the bail application, the learned trial Court shall take into consideration the bar under Section 37 of the Act in the context of the facts and circumstances of the Petitioner’s case and pass appropriate consequential orders. The learned trial Court shall also take into consideration the principle of parity while considering the bail application.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Aug-2026 14:45:52 Signature Not Verified