Orissa High Court
Santosh Singh vs State Of Orissa on 22 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.498 of 2024
CRLA No.505 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
CRLA No.498 of 2024
Santosh Singh ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi,
Additional Standing Counsel
CRLA No.505 of 2024
Ramanand Chowdhury ……. Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 12.05.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026
S.S. Mishra, J. The appellants although have filed the aforementioned
two separate appeals, however, both of them have assailed the common
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29.02.2024
passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Special
G.R. Case No.13 of 2021. The learned trial Court finding the appellants
guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the N.D.P.S. Act, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of ten
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each, in
default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for a further period of one year
each on the said count.
2. The appellants have roughly undergone custody for about five
years. The appellants were admitted to interim bail by this Court and the
appeals were set for final disposal after expiry of the said interim bail
period, once the appellants surrender before the trial Court.
Page 2 of 22
3. Heard Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the State in both the appeals.
4. The criminal law was set into motion against the appellants on the
basis of their arrest and recovery of the contraband ganja of 37 kgs. 240
gms. The prosecution alleged that on 29.01.2021 at about 1.39 A.M.
(intervening night of 28.01.2021 and 29.01.2021) as per direction of the
IIC, Town Police Station, Balangir, S.I. Sri B.K. Behera along with other
staff were performing night patrolling in Balangir Town area. At about
4.24 A.M., S.I. B.K. Behera received information from reliable source
that contraband ganja was being transported in one maroon colour Ford
Endeavour vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-02-AG-2883 from
Saintala side to Sambalpur side. On receiving such information, he
immediately intimated the matter over phone to the IIC, who entered the
information in General Diary of the P.S. vide G.D. entry No.23, dated
29.01.2021. Then the IIC intimated the information to the S.D.P.O.,
Sadar and S.P., Balangir in writing vide D.R. No.393/PS & 394/PS dated
Page 3 of 22
29.01.2021 and such fact was entered in General Diary vide G.D. No.24,
dated 29.01.2021. Requisition was sent by the IIC to the SDM, Balangir
for deputing the Executive Magistrate vide D.R. No.391/PS dated
29.01.2021 through the Constable Prahallad Rout with Command
No.2278631. Being directed by the IIC, the S.I. B.K. Behera along with
his staff conducted blocking on NH-26 in front of the Traffic Outpost,
Balangir. After sometime, the said maroon colour Ford Endeavour
arrived near the blocking point and was stopped by the police team. The
driver tried to escape, but the police team was able to block the road and
catch the vehicle. They found two persons were present in that vehicle
loaded with two poly gunny bags filled with suspected articles in its
backside being covered with a blanket. Smell of ganja was coming out
from the said vehicle. The S.I. Behera arranged two local witnesses to
remain present during search and seizure. About 10.00 A.M., the
Executive Magistrate Smt. Sweekruti Badapanda, Additional Tahasildar,
Balangir arrived at the spot. The weight of the ganja was conducted and
one poly bag was found weighing 24 kgs. 250 grams. The weight of the
Page 4 of 22
poly gunny bag was 150 gms. and the net weight of ganja was 24 kgs.
100 gms. So, the weight of the total ganja was 37 kgs 240 grams in net.
5. After investigation, charge sheet was led down and on the basis of
the denial stance of the accused persons, they were put to trial. In order
to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 18
witnesses. Out of them, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16
were the witnesses to the seizure. P.Ws.7, 8 and 10 were the witnesses to
the occurrence. P.W.13 was the Executive Magistrate whereas P.W.17
was the informant and P.W.18 was the Investigating Officer.
6. On thorough analysis and appreciation of the evidence, the learned
trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution could prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubts and found the appellants guilty of the
offences as mentioned above.
7. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Court leading to the
conviction and sentence passed against them, the appellants have
separately preferred the aforementioned appeals. Since both the appeals
Page 5 of 22
are arising out of the common judgment, the same are analogously heard
and is being disposed of by this common judgment.
8. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellants has taken me to the
oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record and pointed
out that in the present case, the prosecution has utterly failed to comply
with the statutory safeguard contemplated under Sections 42, 50 and 55
of the N.D.P.S. Act. Besides that, Mr. Panda, learned counsel has also
pointed out the contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. However,
largely, Mr. Panda, learned counsel has emphasized on the non-
compliance of the statutory provisions leading to his claim of a clear
acquittal of the appellants in the present case on that count alone.
9. Since Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel
appearing for the State has also not joined the issues in so far as the
contentions raised by Mr. Panda and he submitted that instead of
venturing into appreciating the evidence of all the witnesses, suffice it to
examine as to whether the statutory provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act
has indeed been complied with in the present case or not.
Page 6 of 22
10. Mr. Panda, learned counsel, at the outset, has taken me to the
provisions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. For ready reference,
Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act is reproduced hereunder:
“42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest
without warrant or authorisation.– (l) Any such
officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon,
sepoy or constable) of the departments of central
excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or
any other department of the Central Government
including para-military forces or armed forces as
is empowered in this behalf by general or special
order by the Central Government, or any such
officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon,
sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control,
excise, police or any other department of a State
Government as is empowered in this behalf by
general or special order of the State Government,
if he has reason to believe from personal
knowledge or information given by any person and
taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or
psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in
respect of which an offence punishable under this
Act has been committed or any document or other
article which may furnish evidence of the
commission of such offence or any illegally
acquired property or any document or other
article which may furnish evidence of holding any
illegally acquired property which is liable for
seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA
of this Act is kept or concealed in any building,Page 7 of 22
conveyance or enclosed place, may between
sunrise and sunset,-
(a) enter into and search any such building,
conveyance or place;
(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and
remove any obstacle to such entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials
used in the manufacture thereof and any other
article and any animal or conveyance which he
has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation
under this Act and any document or other article
which he has reason to believe may furnish
evidence of the commission of any offence
punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of
holding any illegally acquired property which is
liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under
Chapter VA of this Act; and
(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper,
arrest any person whom he has reason to believe
to have committed any offence punishable under
this Act:
2
[Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for
manufacture of manufactured drugs or
psychotropic substances or controlled substances
granted under this Act or any rule or order made
thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an
officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:
Provided further that] if such officer has reason to
believe that a search warrant or authorisation
cannot be obtained without affording opportunity
for the concealment of evidence or facility for the
escape of an offender, he may enter and search
such building, conveyance or enclosed place atPage 8 of 22
any time between sunset and sunrise after
recording the grounds of his belief.
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in
writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds
for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall
within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his
immediate official superior.”
Sub-Section (1) of Section-42 of the N.D.P.S. Act mandates that
once the information regarding the transportation or possession of
contraband articles received by the police, he must reduce the same to
writing before initiating such process. Sub-Section (2) requires that such
written information must be sent to the immediate superior officer within
a period of 72 hours. It is no more res integra that compliance of the
aforementioned provisions are mandatory in nature.
11. In the instant case, the learned trial Court, while dealing with the
aforementioned point, has arrived at a conclusion that in the fact scenario
of the present case, Section-42 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable. The
learned trial Court opined that since the vehicle from which the
contraband was recovered was plying in a public road and it was
apprehended in a public place, Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act as such is
Page 9 of 22
not applicable on the facts of the present case. Rather, Section 43 of the
N.D.P.S. Act is applicable. Therefore, the learned trial Court has simply
brush aside the contentions raised by the accused persons regarding non-
compliance of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Relevant would be to
reproduce the portion of the impugned judgment where this issue has
been dealt with by the learned trial Court.
“Further the evidence of the official witnesses clearly points
out the spot to be on the main road near traffic out post, Balangir.
Ext.P-20 is the spot map. NH-26 is passing by the side of the spot.
The concerned vehicle was apprehended at the spot while coming
from Titilagarh side. The spot is a public place. Hence it is
appropriate to refer to a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court
in Directorate of Revenue vs. Mohammad Ninar Holia –
2008(2) SCC 370- Held- Sec.43, on plain reading of the Act, may
not attract the rigors of Sec.42 thereof. That means even
subjective satisfaction on the part of the authority, as is required
under sub-S.(1) of Sec.42, need not be complied with, only
because the place whereas search is to be made is a public place.
That apart, in Hamidbhai Azambhail Malik vs. State of
Gujrat AIR 2009 S.C. 1378- Held- Sec.42 will be invocable only
if the search is made by the police officer or the concerned
authority, upon the prior information, when such an information
or intimation or knowledge comes to the notice of the
investigating officer in course of the regular patrolling or an
investigation of some other offence, it is not necessary to follow in
all case the conditions incorporated in Sec.42.
However coming to the present case, there are sufficient
evidence brought out from the testimony of the police witnesses
that in the preceding late night of 29.01.2021, P.W.17 along with
other accompanying staffs being directed by IIC, Town PS,Page 10 of 22
Balangir vide G.D. entry No.22 were out on patrolling duty at
Balangir town area and around 4.24 AM during course of
patrolling, P.W.17 received reliable information regarding
transportation of contraband articles which was duly intimated to
IIC, Town PS, Balangir and noted down vide G.D. Entry No.23 of
Town PS, Balangir. As per instruction of IIC, they blocked the
road in front of Traffic outpost, Balangir and stopped the vehicle
i.e. Ford Endeavour bearing Regd. No.OR-03-AG-2883 being
occupied by the present accused persons.
Considering the time of detention of the vehicle, it is
reasonable that search warrant or written authorization could not
be obtained without offering opportunity for the concealment of
the evidence or facility for the escape of the accused persons at
that time. There is no impediment in accepting P.W.17 as
competent person to conduct the operation and as the information
was received by P.W.17 during the course of night patrolling, the
compliance of noting down the same by the IIC vide G.D. entry
No.23 dtd. 29.01.2021 appears to be proper. Further, the pot of
detention being accessible to the public, P.W.17 has ample power
in view of Sec.43 of N.D.P.S. Act to conduct the search in the
public place or in transit.
In Rajendra and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2004
(I) OLR (SC) 211-Held- Compliance-Search made without
warrant or authorization information received by the Empowered
Officer regarding carriage of contraband articles (Ganja) by the
persons- Copy of such information was also sent to immediate
superior officer-Mandates of the section not violated.
Considering the aforesaid settled position of law and
provisions of the act it can be safely accepted that P.W.17 was
having the authority to detain and search the involved vehicle
carrying the contraband Ganja at that time. As such, there is
sufficient compliance of the mandatory provisions while
undertaking the procedure provided under Chapter-V of N.D.P.S.
Act relating to search of the offending vehicle i.e. Ford
Endeavour bearing Regd. No.OR-03-AG-2883.”
Page 11 of 22
12. From the evidence of all the witnesses, no doubt it has been
proved by the prosecution that the maroon colour Ford Endeavour
vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-02-AG-2823 being a private
vehicle, was plying in the public road and was apprehended by the
police. From the said vehicle, 37 kgs. 240 grams of ganja was seized.
Now, the question remained to be answered is that, if the
contraband ganja was recovered from a private vehicle in a public place,
whether compliance of Section 42 is required or not. In that regard, the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Boota Singh
and others vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2021 (82) OCR (SC) 667
is relevant. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
“12. The evidence in the present case clearly shows that the
vehicle was not public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to
accused-Gurudip Singh. The Registration Certificate of the
vehicle which has been placed on record also does not indicate it
to be a public transport vehicle. The explanation to Section 43 of
the N.D.P.S. Act shows that, a private vehicle would not come
within the expression “public place” as explained in Section 43 of
the N.D.P.S. Act. On the strength of the decision of this Court in
Jagraj Singh alias Hansa, the relevant provision would not be
Section 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act, but the case would come under
Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.”
Page 12 of 22
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by relying upon the judgment of
Jagraj Singh has held that private vehicles not used for the public
purposes cannot fall under the expression “public place”, as such will not
come under the procedural compliance under Section 43 of the N.D.P.S.
Act, rather procedural compliance under Section 42 of the Act requires
to be followed.
State of Rajasthan vs. Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa, reported in
(2016) 64 OCR (SC) 827 also deals with such point and it is held that a
private vehicle, which was seized in a public place carrying contraband
articles cannot be said to be a public conveyance within the meaning of
explanation to Section 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Hence, Section 43 of the
N.D.P.S. Act is clearly not applicable to those cases, where the
contraband is allegedly seized from a private vehicle in a public place. In
those cases, the provision of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act needs to be
complied by the investigating agency.
14. In view of the aforementioned position of law and in the fact
scenario of the present case, it has become abundantly clear that, in the
Page 13 of 22
instant case, the application of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act was
inevitable and the investigating agency had to comply with the rigors of
the statutory procedural safeguard as contemplated under that provision.
In that view of the matter, the findings arrived at by the learned trial
Court as reproduced above can be safely said to be not in consonance
with the settled position of law.
15. Now, from the evidence, it needs to be appreciated as to whether
in the instant case, the investigating agency has indeed strictly complied
with the procedural safeguard as provided under Section 42 of the
N.D.P.S. Act or not.
In order to appreciate this aspect, the evidence of P.Ws.17 and 18
is required to be analysed in the light of the provisions of law. P.W.17
was the informant in the present case, who was posted as S.I. of Town
Police Station, Balangir. He in his evidence has deposed that on
29.01.2021 night at about 1.30 A.M., he was on patrolling duty with his
staff. He received information that one vehicle bearing Registration No.
OR-02-AG-2883 was coming from Saintala side carrying ganja. He
Page 14 of 22
intimated about the information to the IIC, Town Police Station.
The IIC made S.D. entry and intimated the matter to the S.D.P.O.
and S.P., Balangir as well as to the SDM, Balangir. However, in the
cross-examination, at paragraph-7, he has categorically stated that he
could not note down the information in writing, as he was on the way on
patrolling.
Similarly, in paragraph-24 of the cross-examination, he has further
stated that “it is a fact that I have not noted down the information in
writing even after arriving at the P.S.”
In paragraph-8 of the cross-examination as well, he has stated that,
“I have not mentioned the phone number in the FIR from which I
intimated regarding the information to the IIC.”
16. From reading of the evidence of P.W.17, it is evident that after
receiving the information regarding transportation of the ganja, he had
made the S.D. entry and intimated this fact to the senior officers, but the
intimation was never reduced down to writing and it is also not clear on
record as to how he intimated the information to his senior officers
Page 15 of 22
orally, as he could not disclose the phone number even. From such
evidence, it could be safely inferred that the requirement of sub-section
(2) of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with and it
is also surprisingly found on record that in so far as the S.D. entry stated
to have been made on the intimation of P.W.17, the said S.D. entry has
neither been marked nor has been proved on record.
17. P.W.18 was the Investigating Officer. He in his evidence had
deposed that he has not seized the S.D. entry made by the concerned IIC
on the information of P.W.17. It is also apparent from the evidence of
P.W.18 that he has neither examined the IIC concerned who purported to
have received the information from P.W.17 so as to establish that the
information communicated by P.W.17 to him was indeed entered into
the S.D. entry. P.W.18 also admitted that he has not examined any staff
from the office of either the S.D.P.O., Balangir or the S.P., Balangir to
ensure that the information alleged to have been sent by P.W.17 in
compliance of sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Page 16 of 22
18. Akin to the fact scenario of the present case, this Court in the case
of Ghadua Muduli and another vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2018)
71 OCR-413 went on to record acquittal in favour of the appellant in
that case finding non-compliance of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Paragraph-8 of the said judgment reads thus:
“8. Therefore, when the person concerned who carried Ext.6 to
the office of Superintendent of Police, Koraput has not been
examined. None of the person from the office of Superintendent
of Police, Koraput has been examined to say about the receipt of
Ext.6 in their office. None of the documents from the office of
Superintendent of Police, Koraput has been produced during
trial relating to receive of Ext.6 and even the receipt of such an
important document has not been diarized and the dispatch
register of Pottangi Police Station relating to dispatch of Ext.6
has not been proved. The contention of Mr. Mohapatra that
there is very doubt relating to the compliance of mandatory
provision under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act has got
substantial force. In case of this nature where the prosecution is
required to prove the compliance of mandatory provision under
Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, all the relevant documents which
are connected with such compliance are required to be proved
before the Trial Court in accordance with law and similarly all
the concerned witnesses should be examined in the Court to
prove the vital aspect. In absence of proof of oral as well as
documentary evidence relating to compliance of such provision,
the prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion.”
19. In the instant case, as per the evidence of P.W.17, the IIC
concerned reduced the information in writing as Station Diary, but no
Station Diary has been seized by the I.O.-P.W.18. Further, the concerned
Page 17 of 22
IIC has not been examined by P.W.18. For that matter, no other official
staff in the Office of the S.D.P.O. or the S.P., Balangir has been
examined to establish the compliance of the mandatory provision under
Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab vs.
Balbir Singh, reported in (1994) 7 OCR (SC) 283 has been
authoritatively held that “the object of the N.D.P.S. Act is to make
stringent provisions for control and regulation of operations relating to
those drugs and substances. At the same time, to avoid harm to the
innocent persons and to avoid abuse of the provisions by the officers,
certain safeguards are provided in the N.D.P.S. Act which in the context
have to be observed strictly. Therefore, these provisions make it
obligatory that such of those officers mentioned therein. On receiving
information, should reduce the same to writing and also record reasons
for the benefit while carrying out arrest or search as provided under the
proviso to Section 42(1). To that extent the provisions are mandatory.
Page 18 of 22
Consequently the failure to comply with these requirements thus affects
the prosecution case. Therefore, the entire trial gets vitiated.”
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by noticing the Constitutional Bench
judgment in the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported
in (2009) 44 OCR (SC) 183 has concluded that proof of non-compliance
of the statutory safeguard provided under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act
would eventually lead to the acquittal of an accused.
22. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ghadua
Muduli (supra) while dealing with the fact scenario of that case, which
akin to the facts of the present case has held thus:-
” In view of the settled position of law, now it is to be seen whether
the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants
that there is non-compliance of mandatory provision under Section
42(1) and 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act is sustainable or not. In the
first information report (Ext.10), the Inspector in charge Pottangi
police station (P.W.4) has mentioned that when he received a
reliable information at 2.30 a.m. regarding transportation of ganja
in a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02-AS-0344 from
Koraput side towards Salur, he noted the fact vide P.S. S.D. vide
S.D. Entry No.68 dated 04.02.2009 and he believed that there
would be delay caused in obtaining a search warrant which would
facilitate the accused persons to escape with the contraband ganja
and he thought it prudent to conduct raid without obtaining a
search warrant. Accordingly, he recorded his grounds of belief in
the P.S. station diary and sent a report to the Superintendent of
Police, Koraput who was the immediate superior as per the P.S.Page 19 of 22
D.R. No.173 dated 04.02.2009. While deposing in Court, P.W.4 has
also made similar statement.
Though the station diary book and dispatch register of Pottangi
police station were seized under seizure list Ext.14 on 08.02.2009
by P.W.4 along with Malkhana register but neither the station
diary book nor the dispatch register was produced in Court during
trial. Even the authenticated copies of the station diary and
dispatch register were also not produced. Therefore, there was no
material before the Trial Court that any such entry was in fact been
made. In view of the mandatory provision of Section 42 of the
N.D.P.S. Act, the Court is required not only to verify that the
reliable information was taken down in writing but also the
grounds of belief was also recorded as per the second proviso to
Section 42(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act and copy of the same was sent to
the immediate official superior in view of Sub-section(2) of Section
42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.”
In the Ghadua (supra) case, the Court, by analyzing the evidence,
arrived at a conclusion that the provision of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S.
Act is not complied and held that the conviction recorded against the
appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act
not sustained the scrutiny of law and hence, acquitted the accused
persons.
23. Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel
appearing for the State could not dispute the position that in the instant
case, the information sent by P.W.17 although stated to be entered the
information in station diary, the same has not been proved on record. He
Page 20 of 22
further fairly submits that the evidence of P.Ws.17 and 18 falls short of
establishing the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt regarding
compliance of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
24. Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned counsel for the appellants has
also brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of other witnesses in
an attempt to establish that in the instant case, the provision of Section
55 of the N.D.P.S. Act has also not been complied with.
25. In view of the aforementioned discussion, since it is conclusively
established on record that the required procedural safeguard provided
under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with to its
letter and spirit, which has really prejudiced the accused. This Court
need not venture into further deliberation to appreciate the evidence so as
to ascertain as to whether the provision of Sections 50, 55 or 57 of the
N.D.P.S. Act has been complied in this case or not. Hence, the accused
persons are entitled to an acquittal solely on the ground as mentioned
above. The other points raised by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the
appellants to bring home his argument regarding non-compliance of
Page 21 of 22
Section 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the inherent contradiction in the
evidence of the witnesses need not be gone into.
26. In view of the aforementioned discussions, both the above appeals
are to be allowed.
27. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals stand allowed and the
impugned common judgments of conviction and order of sentence dated
29.02.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir
in Spl. G.R. Case No.13 of 2021 are set aside to that extent. The bail
bond of the appellants stand discharged.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 22nd Day of May, 2026/ Subhasis Mohanty
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Page 22 of 22
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 25-May-2026 20:33:05
