Nominal Index [Citations 1-66]Sarfaraz Khan & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 1Priyam Pratham Sabat v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 2Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @ Pabana Sahu & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 3Union of India & Ors. v. K. Manoj Patra & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 4Jayanti Biswas & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.,...
Nominal Index [Citations 1-66]
Sarfaraz Khan & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 1
Priyam Pratham Sabat v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 2
Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @ Pabana Sahu & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 3
Union of India & Ors. v. K. Manoj Patra & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 4
Jayanti Biswas & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 5
Ajay Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 6
Kankalata Dwivedi v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 7
Union of India & Ors. v. Kalpana Nayak, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 8
Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Ajit Kumar Khuntia & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 9
Srinivaschary K.R. @ Srinivaschari K.R. @ K.R. Srinibash Acharya @ K.R.S Achary v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 10
Union of India and Others v. Dr. Manoj Kumar Das, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 11
Maheswar Jena v. Madhusudan Dalai & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 12
Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 13
Subhasree Pattanaik v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 14
Sasmita Sahoo & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 15
Alone Trust v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 16
Mani Machha v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 17
Radheshyam Yadav v. Sarada Prasad Nayak, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 18
Roshan Kumar Pradhan & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 19
M/s. Green Energy Resources, Sambalpur v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 20
Shashikanta Majhi v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 21
Matal @ Pramod Nayak @ Naik v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 22
Suchitra Mohapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 23
DKM v. SOO, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 24
Arman Khan & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 25
SKS v. PS, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 26
Abhijeet Acharya v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 27
State of Odisha & Ors. v. Debendra Nath Malik, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 28
Narendra Nath Singh v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 29
Abinash Digal @ Papun Digal v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 30
Ramjee Prasad Gupta v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 31
Sanat Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 32
M/s. NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd., Haryana v. Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Bhubaneswar, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 33
Lacha Madi v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 34
Somanath Rout (dead) v. State of Orissa & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
Sk. Hanif v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 36
State of Odisha & Others v. Bansidhara Bariki, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 37
Brahmananda Pradhan & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 38
Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Prafulla Kumar Mishra, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 39
Dr. Deepak Padhi v. Gayatri Panda, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 40
Manjit @ Mandeep Kaur v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 41
Anil Nath v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 42
Nrusingh Charan Muduli v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 43
Mir Chuna @ Mir Safik v. State of Orissa, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 44
Srujeet Khuntia v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 45
Itishree Nath v. Bank of Baroda & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 46
Adikanda Swain & Anr. v. State of Orissa, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 47
Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
Sushanta Dhalasamanta v. State of Orissa, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 49
Bhabagrahi Das v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 50
Amrita Das & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 51
Bablu Verma v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 52
Trinath Guru & Anr. v. State of Orissa, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 53
Lalit Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 54
Akhaya Kumar Rout & Anr. v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 55
Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. Manoranjan Kumbhar, IIC, Bisra Police Station, Rourkela, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 56
Smt. Subasini Dei v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 57
Subash Chandra Panda v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 58
Suresh Kumar Mohapatra @ Suria v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 59
Batakrushna Dehury v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
Vepanjeri Dileep Kumar v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 61
State of Odisha & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Bhainsa & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 62
Babu Das v. State of Orissa, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 63
Shri Lambodar Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 64
Kartika Lama @ Bahadur @ Kartik v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 65
State of Odisha & Anr. v. Amita Mohapatra, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 66
Reported Judgments & Orders
Case Title: Sarfaraz Khan & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 1
The Orissa High Court quashed an FIR alleging commission of offences of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, uttering obscene words to the annoyance of others in public and criminal intimidation, after the informant and the accused persons settled the dispute among themselves amicably through mediation. Agreeing to draw curtains on the impending criminal prosecution, the Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho was gruntled to observe–
“This is a case where settlement of the dispute between the parties has been possible on account of the availability of infrastructure for mediation in the State, availability of a trained mediator for mediating between the parties and willingness of the parties on the advice of their counsel for settlement of the matter through mediation leading to a win -win situation for all concerned. The informant has got back his money, the accused persons do not have to face criminal proceedings and valuable time of the court has been saved.”
Criminal Breach Of Trust And Cheating Cannot Co-Exist On Same Facts: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Priyam Pratham Sabat v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 2
A Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik reiterated that the offences of 'criminal breach of trust' and 'cheating' cannot co-exist in a given case based on same set of facts, since in the offence of cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false and misleading representation but in the offence of criminal breach of trust, there may not be any prior criminal intention, which begins with lawful entrustment and is later misappropriated.
Orissa High Court Refuses Bail To Accused In 2024 Spurious Liquor Tragedy That Claimed Five Lives
Case Title: Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @ Pabana Sahu & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 3
The Orissa High Court denied bail to five persons accused of selling spurious liquor, allegedly containing ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate, which caused death of five persons apart from causing illness of dozen others in K. Nuagaon area of Ganjam district in August 2024. Denying any relief at this stage, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“What is relevant at this stage is that five persons suffered death and some persons suffered illness after consuming liquor sold by the co-accused persons and there is allegation against the petitioners for either selling the liquor to some of the villagers without any authority or supplying the same to vendors-cum-co-accused persons for selling it.”
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. K. Manoj Patra & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 4
The Orissa High Court ruled that non-registration of an adoption deed before the death of adoptive father cannot be taken as a ground to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment to adoptive son, if the essential requirements of a valid adoption are otherwise complied with. Providing relief to the adoptive son of an ex-railway employee, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held –
“The Adoption Deed is registered long after the demise of employee concerned, is not much relevant to validity of adoption. It needs no mentioning that performance of prescribed rites is constitutive of adoption and subsequent execution & registration of Deed of Adoption is only evidentiary. In other words, the subject Deed only records the event of adoption. This subtle difference between accomplishment of adoption and the subsequent execution of document of adoption cannot be ignored, be it under the shaastrik process or under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, more particularly when there is a civil court judgment.”
Case Title: Jayanti Biswas & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 5
The Orissa High Court held that a writ petition seeking deletion of deceased person's name from Record of Rights (RoR) cannot be entertained as an enquiry by the jurisdictional Tahasildar is a necessary precondition before replacing a deceased person with his legal representatives. Clarifying the jurisdictional issue, the Bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera held –
“It is the settled propositions of law that, for deletion of the name of a recorded tenant from a R.o.R on the ground of his/her death, a Mutation Case is to be registered on the basis of an application submitted by a interested party, who is interested for deletion of the name of such dead person from the R.o.R and then, an enquiry is to be conducted by the Tahasildar and thereafter, necessary order may be passed by the Tahasildar for deletion/exclusion of the name of the dead recorded tenant from the R.o.R and in his place, the names of his/her LRs be indicated.”
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 6
The Orissa High Court allowed a girl, who was forced into a marriage by her parents against her will, to live independently away from her husband as well as parents. The Court went a step ahead in directing the police to ensure the safety and security of the girl. Taking a cue from this case, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman asked the State to conduct sensitization programs for educating parents to refrain from imposing their decisions on major children. It was further observed –
“A time has come when the society would introspect when the girls are forced to marry by the parents. The decision of the girl is paramount and her consent should be obtained before any such decision is taken by the parents. When a girl is not ready for the marriage, giving her in marriage by using extraneous force is not conducive for a healthy society and a time has come when the sensitization program should be conducted by the administration eradicating any sense of imposing own decision on the children by the parents.”
Case Title: Kankalata Dwivedi v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 7
The Orissa High Court held that solemnisation of second marriage, which is void ab initio, by a Hindu man during subsistence of his first marriage does not get legitimised/legalised upon the death of the first wife. The Division Bench of Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash also nixed the suggestion that even if the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void ab initio, it get legitimised upon the subsequent death of the first wife. It accordingly held –
“The vehement submission of learned counsel for the appellant that even if the second marriage when solemnized was null & void because of subsisting first marriage, on the death of first wife it gets legitimized and therefore the arguable voidness of the said marriage would evaporate, is not supported by any standard treatises on Hindu Law of Marriage. What is void ab initio, does not become valid by the happening of subsequent event, there being the maxim ex nihilo nihil fit, meaning out of nothing, nothing comes out.”
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Kalpana Nayak.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 8
The Orissa High Court upheld an order of Administrative Tribunal reinstating a female employee who was removed from service on the ground that she was a minor at the time of appointment, while the minimum eligibility age was 18 years. For confirming the impugned order, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash reasoned –
“In the matter of engagement, where all documents are produced by the aspiring candidates, the process of engagement takes place indoor and therefore, the doctrine of 'indoor management' comes into play. It is not the case of Petitioners that OP had committed any fraud or fabrication or any act of suppressio very suggestio falsi.”
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Ajit Kumar Khuntia & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 9
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to suffer violence on their behalf,” the Orissa High Court quoted George Orwell as it upheld the direction of a Single Bench, which ordered compassionate appointment as Head Constable in favour of the wife of a former Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) jawan who sustained grave injuries and disability in a bomb blast while on combat duty in 2007. A Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash was critical of the approach of the authority in rejecting the claim of an ex-defence staff. It starkly observed–
“A society, which does not hold the Defence Personnel in high esteem, will do disservice to itself, inasmuch as its own security will be at stake, if those who guard it are not regarded. These personnel protect borders of the country with a belief that if something wrong happens to their life or limb, the State & Civil Society would come forward for rescue by providing some succour to their families. This belief that prompts them to do great sacrifice should not be shaken. Therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment in such special cases have to be processed with humane approach and not in a bureaucratic manner.”
Case Title: Srinivaschary K.R. @ Srinivaschari K.R. @ K.R. Srinibash Acharya @ K.R.S Achary v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 10
The Orissa High Court held that non-bailable warrant of arrest (NBW) cannot be issued against an accused before the scheduled date of appearance, upon issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Terming such dereliction as an “affront to personal liberty” of the accused, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held –
“…it seems that since the IO has not waited for the scheduled time, the NBWA issued against the petitioner is an affront to the personal liberty of the petitioner and the same appears to have no legal standing/sanction of law, inasmuch as NBWA should be the last resort in a criminal case when issuance of BW would not result in appearance/production of the petitioner before the Court concerned.”
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Dr. Manoj Kumar Das
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 11
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that continuity of service for pension benefits is preserved under CCS (Pension) Rules when an employee submits a technical resignation and immediately rejoins the same post under the same employer without interruption.
Case Title: Maheswar Jena v. Madhusudan Dalai & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 12
The Orissa High Court upheld the disqualification of a Gram Panchayat Member for having more than two children, which is a statutory ground of disqualification as per Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964. Repelling the challenge to a Single Bench order which affirmed such disqualification, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash interestingly observed –
“Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) is said to have said "India is not a nation, but mere population". This was long before the Partition, when the then population of undivided India was about 30 Crores or so. What caustic comment he would have made, had he been alive today, will drive one to wild imagination.”
Case Title: Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta & Anr. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 13
The Orissa High Court denied bail to notorious gangsters Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta and Susil Kumar Dhalasamanta, best known as Dhalasamanta brothers/D-Brothers, in a case involving extortion of money and unauthorized possession of firearms and live ammunitions in their house. For denying relief to the petitioners, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy took into account numerous criminal antecedents against the duo. It further observed –
“Besides, there are series of criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners. What should be the consideration for grant bail has been elucidated in a plethora of decisions, but in addition to such factors for consideration of bail application, the criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be brushed lightly as it has got definite impact on the society.”
Case Title: Subhasree Pattanaik v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 14
The Orissa High Court upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) reinstating a female government employee who was dismissed from service for allegedly throwing her baby into a canal causing her death. The Court further modified the Tribunal's order asking the employer to pay 75% of the back wages upon her reinstatement. In the absence of any evidence implicating the petitioner in the alleged crime, coupled with the fact that she was acquitted by a competent Criminal Court, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash remarked –
“It is a Jewish proverb that “God could not be everywhere and therefore, he made mothers”. There is absolutely no material to infer, let alone demonstrate that the Petitioner intended to commit suicide and as a step in aid she had thrown her baby into the flowing waters of the canal. No mother would hurt her child. Adi Shankaracharya in Devi Aparadha Kshamapana Stotram says “Kuputro Jayet Kwachidapi Kumata Na Bhavati”, a bad son may be born somewhere, but a bad mother never is, literally meaning.”
Case Title: Sasmita Sahoo & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 15
In an unusual development, the Orissa High Court criticized an officer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) for casting aspersions on the professional ethics of the Advocate General for the State. The Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy went a step ahead in restraining media from reporting the contents of the affidavit through which the DSP had made certain “scurrilous” allegations against the top law officer of the State. It thus remarked–
“The trust of the people upon this institution should not be believed by encouraging wild litigants to make scurrilous remarks against constitutional functionaries in defiance of the Courts' orders. Purity is the hallmark of justice and justice is deeply rooted in the confidence of the people.”
Case Title: Alone Trust v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 16
Taking misuse of the State Emblem of India seriously, the Orissa High Court directed the State Government to create a State Level Task Force to monitor and review any suggestion, objection and/or report the misuse of the Emblem. Additionally, the Court also issued a slew of directions for preventing institutional as well as individual misuse of the Emblem. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak put much emphasis on the need to honour the Emblem which not only represents the values of the nation but also unites its people, irrespective of all differences and peculiarities. It notably observed –
“The National Symbol or the Emblem adopted by the nation percolates a sense of responsibilities and core values of life which at times, is distinct from the other nations within the globe. Preservation of the core cultural, ethical and moral values and its dissemination through the Symbol, Flag and Emblem is aimed not only to unite the people of the country but to be reminded of the basic values of life.”
Case Title: Mani Machha v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 17
The Orissa High Court held that a daughter's relation with her parents does not cease to exist after marriage, so as to her deny compassionate appointment in lieu of on-duty death of her father. The Court ordered the State Government to provide rehabilitory appointment to the married daughter of a deceased employee 26 years after he died in harness, i.e. in the year 1999. A Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that if marriage does not disqualify a son from staking claim for compassionate appointment, the same should also not hinder a daughter. In the words of the Court –
“For the purpose of compassionate appointment, women, i.e., daughters constitute one homogenous class and that excluding the married daughters would create an artificial class within the class and therefore, would fall foul of doctrine of equality enshrined in Part III of the Constitution… If marriage is not a disability for sons of a deceased-employee to stake claim for compassionate appointment, it cannot be a disability for daughters too. An idea otherwise would offend the institutions of society such as family, marriage, etc. as obtaining in the civilized world.”
Case Title: Radheshyam Yadav v. Sarada Prasad Nayak
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 18
The Orissa High Court dismissed an election petition filed against the election of Biju Janata Dal's (BJD) Sarada Prasad Nayak as the Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Rourkela Legislative Assembly constituency in the 2024 Assembly Election. A Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra categorically held that the fact that an official allegedly posted a selfie with an open Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) or Voter Verified Paper Audit Trial (VVPAT) machine does not per se amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to nullify the election of the MLA, especially when proof of such post was neither annexed to the petition nor supplied to the respondent.
Case Title: Roshan Kumar Pradhan & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 19
The Orissa High Court issued a slew of directions for ensuring safety and security inside as well as around the campus of National Law University Odisha, Cuttack (NLUO), which is situated near Naraj, a secluded area at the outskirt of the city. A Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi stressed on the duty and responsibility of the University administration as well as the police to maintain strict law and order near the premiere legal institution. The Judge thus remarked –
“Institutions of higher learning must remain spaces of safety, dignity, and intellectual freedom. Any trend of lawlessness, vigilantism, or disorder in and around the campus environment not only jeopardizes students' welfare but also undermines the institutional ethos. It is expected that the concerned authorities, including the University administration and the local law enforcement agencies, shall remain vigilant and take appropriate preventive and remedial measures to ensure that such incidents do not recur, and that the campus atmosphere remains secure and conducive to academic pursuits.”
Case Title: M/s. Green Energy Resources, Sambalpur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 20
The Orissa High Court allowed a patentee to file application before the Controller for restoration of patent, even after expiry of the permissible restoration window of eighteen months, which ceased to have effect due to non-payment of renewal fees by the patent agent. While granting relief, the Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray held that a patentee cannot be made to suffer for the sole negligence of the patent agent, and thus held –
“In the given facts of the present case, as stated by the Petitioner, the non-payment of renewal fee within the time due to the fault of athourised [sic] agent is found convinced taking note of the averments made in the writ petition… no difficulty is seen by this Court for considering the application of the Petitioner for restoration of the Patent by the Controller.”
Case Title: Shashikanta Majhi v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 21
The Orissa High Court held that the Writ Courts should not decide child custody battles through habeas corpus petitions unless it is found that the custody of child is retained in an illegal/unlawful manner. It further ruled that if question of custody entails complexities or requires detailed inquiry, it is incumbent upon the writ court to remit the case to competent Civil Court for proper adjudication. Delineating the boundaries of writ jurisdiction in child custody matters, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed–
“The moment the custody does not appear to be illegal and/or unlawful and the question which begging an answer is, whether the welfare of the child lies in uprooting him/her from the known custody to the custody of another person, it would be proper for the Court to relegate the parties to approach the Civil Courts.”
Case Title: Matal @ Pramod Nayak @ Naik v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 22
The Orissa High Court raised concerns about repeated cases of non-compliance of mandatory constitutional as well as procedural requirements, under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (akin to Section 50, CrPC) respectively, by police officers to provide grounds of arrest while arresting any person. A Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy highlighted that such dereliction on the part of arresting officers is only beneficial to the hardened criminals, who raise such grounds for annulling their arrests. In the words of the Judge–
“It is very high time to prevent such violation of mandatory provisions inasmuch as the offender may take the benefit of the non-compliance of the aforesaid mandatory statutory requirements which is very much evident in this case and this Court has come across in so many cases about violations/infractions of the aforesaid provisions under Article 22(1)/Sec.47 of the BNSS (Sec.50 of CrPC) only enuring to the benefit of the offender to get out of the custody mainly on technical grounds.”
Case Title: Suchitra Mohapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 23
The Orissa High Court upheld a single bench order which had confirmed the disengagement/removal order passed against a female school teacher, on the ground of her unauthorised absence from duty for more than 7 years. While expressing disinclination to interfere with the impugned order, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash emphasised the role of a school teacher in shaping destiny of young students, and hence observed–
“What difficulty the community of taught would be put to for want of a teacher leads one to a wild imagination. It is more so in this competitive age. Teachers are revered as builders of nation. Such is the importance any civilized society would attach to the teaching job more particularly that are meant for tender minds. Therefore, our scriptures say 'gurubhyo namah', literally meaning 'salutations to the teacher'.”
Case Title: DKM v. SOO
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 24
The Orissa High Court quashed a criminal case against a husband, accused of demanding dowry and meting out cruelty against his wife, on the basis of divorce of the couple on mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A Single Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho was of the opinion that since the marriage has been dissolved with the consent of both the spouses, no “useful purpose” would be served in keeping the criminal case alive anymore.
Case Title: Arman Khan & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 25
The Orissa High Court held that while the police has power to issue notice to the accused to appear when required for investigation under Section 41A(1) CrPC/Section 35(3) BNSS , it however said that requiring the accused persons to appear every 15 days is not proper. Clarifying this significant procedural aspect vis-à-vis arrest, the Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho notably observed–
“As it is provided in Section 41 A that the police officer is to, “issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice”, I am of the view that it was within the power of the I.O. to issue notice to the person accused of the offence, to appear before him at the police station or at any other place as and when required for the purpose of investigation, but requiring them to appear every fifteen days was not proper. The I.O. has to be careful and specific while issuing the notice, as non-compliance of the conditions of the notice would have made the person liable for arrest under Section 41(4) of the Cr.P.C and now under Section 35(6) of the BNSS.”
Case Title: SKS v. PS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 26
The Orissa High Court said while it may not be practical for a Magistrate to decide Section 12(1) application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, within statutory prescribed period of 60 days, however unnecessary and long adjournments should not be given to the parties. Emphasizing the salutary object with which the enactment has been made, the Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho observed–
“The D.V. Act has been enacted with the object of providing effective rights of protection to the women guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution of India, who are victim of any kind of violence within the family. The provision under Section 12(5) of the Act has been inserted with the intention for expeditious disposal of application filed under Section 12(1) of the D.V. Act. It may not be possible or practical to dispose of the application within 60 days, but endeavour should be made for expeditious disposal, without depriving any of the parties of effective hearing. If unnecessary or long adjournments are granted, to either party, the case will continue to linger".
Case Title: Abhijeet Acharya v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 27
The Orissa High Court observed that the police should record statements and preserve videos of amicable settlements between the parties in criminal cases, in order to ensure that the settlement is arrived at voluntarily at the consent of the parties, bereft of any pressure or threats. A Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho advised the police to preserve such videos, which would go a long way in shielding the police itself against false allegations of threat or undue pressure. In the words of the Judge–
“...I would like to observe that amicable settlement and mediation is/are a laudable method(s) for settlement of disputes and misunderstandings. It is a preferred mode of settlement as it preserves relationships and clears petty misunderstanding. But an amicable settlement is supposed to be voluntary and free from pressure or threats. But the settlement has to be voluntary and without exertion of any pressure. The Police should therefore exercise restraint and be doubly sure that the settlement is voluntary and the parties involved do not feel pressurized or threatened. The video recording of such settlements should therefore be separately preserved and statements of the parties recorded, so that there is no scope for any party to subsequently make allegations regarding use of force or threat. This would be in the interest of the parties as well as the Police Officers themselves.”
Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Debendra Nath Malik
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 28
'What is State without justice, but a band of robbers…,” the Orissa High Court quoted Jeremy Bentham as it castigated the State and its officials for making a teacher belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) community to fight multiple litigations challenging his illegal removal from the post for the second time on a non-applicable ground, notwithstanding his earlier reinstatement. The Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash lamented the manner in which the employee belonging to a “downtrodden community” was made to suffer at the whims of government authorities for over two decades. It scathingly remarked–
“The fruits of victorious battles to some extent eluded him. Mindlessness and callousness galore on the part of authorities 'that be'. A scrupulous member of downtrodden community was made to spend the prime of his youth in the Court corridors, that are not a happy place to hover. That cannot go unscathed. Someone has to raise the red flag and we are doing it. What all happened in this case reminds us of Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (1832-1898). It raises a question; whether State is the first enemy of scrupulous citizens? We do not venture to answer it. It was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) who had said 'What is State without justice, but a band of robbers…'. Much is not necessary to deliberate.”
Case Title: Narendra Nath Singh v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 29
The Orissa High Court held cancellation of a lease under the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 cannot be deemed to be illegal merely because the cancellation order was passed by the Mining Officer (In-charge), while the Mining Officer was the 'competent authority' under such Rules. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman was of the opinion that an administrative post cannot be allowed to go into a hibernation only because the original post-holder remains absent due to certain eventualities, whose duties are to be performed by a competent person by interim conferment of powers.
Case Title: Abinash Digal @ Papun Digal v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 30
The Orissa High Court held that squeezing and pulling the breast of a minor girl, even though the same were done without making any “skin-to-skin” contact, would amount to 'sexual assault' as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act which is punishable under Section 8 thereof. While upholding the finding of guilt against the appellant for committing sexual assault upon the victim, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeeb Kumar Panigrahi notably observed–
“The contention that in the absence of skin-to-skin contact the act would not constitute sexual assault is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court [in Attorney General for India v. Satish & Anr., LL 2021 SC 656] has unequivocally clarified that a narrow or pedantic interpretation to Section 7 of the POCSO Act that would defeat the very object and purpose of the enactment.”
Case Title: Ramjee Prasad Gupta v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 31
The Orissa High Court granted bail to eight persons, including the Vice-President of the Board of Secondary Education (BSE), taken into custody for their alleged role in leaking the question papers of the Special Odisha Teacher Eligibility Test, 2025 (OTET) days before the examination was scheduled to be held. Citing low prospect of early conclusion of the ongoing trial as well as long pre-trial detention of the accused, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held–
“Leakage of question paper before the exam is of course the hardest consequence that would befall on meritorious candidates, but accusation/allegation cannot be accepted at its face to punish an accused prior to the trial since the same is subject to proof in the trial and this is the precise reason for not to withheld bail to an accused as a pre-trial punishment”
Case Title: Sanat Kumar Pradhan v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 32
In a powerful reminder to village institutions, the Orissa High Court unequivocally held that neither Panchayat is a Court of law nor Sarpanch is a Magistrate holding judicial power to deal with serious criminal cases like child sexual abuse and to broker settlement in such heinous cases through securing a promise of marriage from the abuser.
While upholding the conviction of a man accused of repeatedly having sexual intercourse with a minor girl, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi highlighted a 'disturbing' pattern prevalent especially in rural societies where village gentries put endeavour to settle abhorrent crime like sexual assault upon a minor by holding mediative panchayat discussions, often making the parties to put quietus to dispute by agreeing to marry. The Judge cautioned against such approach by remarking –
“It must be remembered that no panchayat is a court of law. A Sarpanch does not exercise the authority of a magistrate, nor do village elders acquire jurisdiction over criminal offences merely by convening a meeting. The adjudication of crime belongs to the institutions of the legal system alone. When village bodies assume to themselves the task of deciding or “settling” such allegations, they step beyond their lawful role and act in clear disregard of the authority of law.”
Order Passed By Judge On A Subject Matter Beyond His Assigned Roster Is Illegal: Orissa High Court
Case Title: M/s. NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd., Haryana v. Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Bhubaneswar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 33
The Orissa High Court recently held that an order passed by a Judge [of High Court] on a subject matter, which is not included in the roster/determination set by the Chief Justice, is per se illegal as usurpation of power without the authority of the Master of the Roster, i.e. the Chief Justice, is impermissible. Clarifying the effect of such judicial overstepping, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandan and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held–
“It is well settled that the Chief Justice is the master of the Roster. It segregates the category of cases to be dealt by each of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court which ipso facto leads to an inescapable inference that category of cases which are not assigned to a particular Judge, cannot be taken up by the said Judge. Once the power under jurisdiction exercised by each of the Judges is assigned by the Chief Justice, usurpation of power de hors such category of cases would relate to an exercise of the jurisdiction without any authority, and, therefore, any order is passed by a Bench having not assigned the Roster/determination is per se illegal.”
Case Title: Lacha Madi v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 34
The Orissa High Court clarified that the mandate of providing written grounds of arrest to the accused, which was made mandatory by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066, applies prospectively and thus, non-compliance thereof before the date of judgment does not render the arrest illegal per se. Denying bail to an accused who raised the aforesaid sole ground, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said–
“On a plain reading of the aforesaid law laid down by Apex Court, it appears that the written communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee is applied prospectively from the date of delivery of judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which has been rendered on 06.11.2025, but the arrest in the present case relates back to 31.10.2024 and, therefore, the contention/plea of the petitioner is found unmerited.”
Case Title: Somanath Rout (dead) v. State of Orissa & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
A Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that after superannuation, only the Government is authorised under the rules to pass the order of penalty in a departmental proceeding even initiated prior to the retirement. A subordinate authority cannot impose such penalty.
Case Title: Sk. Hanif v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 36
The Orissa High Court ordered the State's Director General of Police (DGP) to handover the investigation to an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) or Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) in an alleged case of public stripping of a Muslim man and coercing him to utter 'Jay Sri Ram'. Allowing the petition filed by the father of the victim, the Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho held–
“The investigation in the case is in progress, but keeping in view the nature of the allegations and as it is not disputed that the incident had been videographed and made viral over social media, in the opinion of the Court that it would be proper if the investigation of the case is supervised by a Senior Officer not below the rank of DSP.”
Identical Evidence: Orissa High Court Quashes Disciplinary Action After Criminal Court Acquittal
Case Title: State of Odisha & Others v. Bansidhara Bariki
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 37
A Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that departmental proceedings based on identical evidence must be set aside when a criminal court has acquitted the employee on the merits, leaving the disciplinary findings based on “no evidence”.
Case Title: Brahmananda Pradhan & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 38
The Orissa High Court held that only the complainant in a cheque dishonour case, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, may give his evidence-in-chief by way of an affidavit as per Section 145(1) of the Act. It clarified that the same procedure is not applicable to the accused, who is required to render his examination-in-chief before the Court itself. Ruling out permissibility of accused's evidence-in-chief through affidavit, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi said–
“A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that sub-section (1) expressly enables the complainant to present his evidence by way of affidavit and permits such affidavit to be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is pertinent to note that the provision specifically uses the expression “complainant” in sub-section (1) and does not extend the same liberty to the accused.”
Case Title: Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Prafulla Kumar Mishra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 39
The Orissa High Court quashed a criminal complaint and summoning order issued by a Magisterial Court against the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its Chairman Mukesh Ambani over supply of a defective mobile handset to a lawyer in the year 2003. While setting aside the impending criminal prosecution, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi termed the entire exercise as a “calculated misuse of the process of the Court” and thus, observed –
“The arraigning of Shri Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani in a complaint of this nature, in the considered view of this Court, has no real connection with the pursuit of any criminal remedy. It is, in substance, a publicity driven exercise presented in the form of a criminal complaint. The Court is not unaware that proceedings involving well known individuals tend to attract attention and are often reported widely. That, however, is no ground to invoke criminal jurisdiction.”
Case Title: Dr. Deepak Padhi v. Gayatri Panda
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 40
The Orissa High Court held that merely because divorce was granted in favour of husband on the ground of desertion by wife, it per se does not bar grant of maintenance to the wife subsequent to the divorce. Clarifying the position of law, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi was of the opinion that–
“Under the BNSS, the maintenance provision stands renumbered as Section 144. The Explanation continues to include within the expression “wife” a divorced woman who has not remarried… In view of the above authorities, the legal position is clear that the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion does not, by itself, create a statutory bar to post-divorce maintenance. Therefore, the petitioner cannot succeed on the broad proposition that the present proceeding is inherently non-maintainable merely because the finding of desertion has attained finality.”
Case Title: Manjit @ Mandeep Kaur v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 41
The Orissa High Court quashed a criminal proceeding, which was initiated in 2016 by a woman against her in-laws on the alleged ground of cruelty and matrimonial torture, after both the sides settled the dispute amicably amongst themselves. Invoking the inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–
“This Court is further of the view that efforts ought to be made to encourage reconciliation and amicable settlement between the parties, so as to enable them to reflect upon their respective shortcomings and resolve their disputes through mutual consent. Prolonged adversarial litigation in matrimonial matters not only aggravates bitterness between the parties but also results in unnecessary consumption of judicial time.”
Case Title: Anil Nath v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 42
The Orissa High Court upheld a trial court order which convicted a 26-year-old man for raping an 80-year-old woman noting that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It however reduced the sentence imposed from 12 years imprisonment as imposed by trial court, to 10 years imprisonment. While upholding the findings of the trial Court on the guilt of the accused-appellant, the Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy held–
“This Court taking into account the statement of the victim-P.W.5 [victim] vis-à-vis the statement of P.Ws.12 & 18 as well as P.W.14 [doctors], is of the view that the prosecution has proved the charge of rape on the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no material placed to disbelieve the statement of P.W.5. It is also the view of this court that a lady of 80 years will [not][sic] depose falsehood about the charge, against a boy of 26 years.”
Case Title: Nrusingh Charan Muduli v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 43
The Orissa High Court dismissed a petition challenging an ex-parte order passed against a contractor, asking him to remove obstruction, who allegedly locked a Mini Stadium in the district of Cuttack over non-payment of his dues by the government authorities. A Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take coercive measures to the detriment of public to enforce a monetary claim. Rejecting his challenge to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), the Court remarked–
“The Petitioner cannot resort to self-help or coercive measures to enforce a monetary claim. Even if any amount is due, the appropriate remedy lies in approaching the competent authority or initiating proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of such dues. Taking law into one's own hands by restricting access to public property is impermissible in law.”
Case Title: Mir Chuna @ Mir Safik v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 44
The Orissa High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon a man who was found guilty for attempt to murder of a lady whom he stabbed multiple times in the year 1992, causing serious abdominal injuries including protrusion of intestines. A Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra though upheld the order of conviction handed down by the trial Court, due to passage of almost 31 years in between the order of conviction and hearing of appeal, it was of the view that reducing the sentence to period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused shall balance the scales of justice.
Case Title: Srujeet Khuntia v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 45
The Orissa High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to rename the city of 'Cuttack' as 'Katak'. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman found the case to be a publicity driven litigation and imposed a cost of rupees ten thousand.
“Once a litigation of such nature has already been dismissed with categorical finding that it is within the exclusive domain of the Government whether to describe the spelling of “Cuttack” as “Katak”, the present Public Interest Litigation on the self-same cause is not maintainable. It is one of such examples of publicity interest litigation than having a serious concern over the interest of public. The Court must frown upon such fancy litigation which has a sinister motive of gaining the popularity without having any element of a public interest in it.”
Case Title: Itishree Nath v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 46
“And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of those who work with joy,” the Orissa High Court quoted Lebanese-American writer Kahlil Gibran as it denied to grant any relief to a former female bank employee who was removed from service due to unauthorized absence from office upon her transfer to a different place. Rejecting the writ appeal filed by the appellant/employee against an unfavourable order, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed–
“Ordinarily, the employees in public service like the one in this case are expected to join the places to which they are transferred in due course. It hardly needs to be stated as to what all difficulties the public service of banking would suffer when employees defy transfer orders with intent to cling on to the same place.”
Case Title: Adikanda Swain & Anr. v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 47
The Orissa High Court held that a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS can only be issued to persons accused of committing cognizable offences punishable with an imprisonment for less than seven years or which may extend up to seven years, and not more than that. Clarifying the position of law and highlighting the error committed by not only the police but also the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed–
“…notice as contemplated U/S. 35(3) of the BNSS is meant for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine subject to satisfaction of other grounds as enumerated in Sec. 35(1) of the BNSS and it is, therefore, considered that not only the police officer erred in applying the law, but also the learned SDJM passed order granting bail to the co-accused persons without adverting to the relevant provision of law.”
Case Title: Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
A Division Bench of Justice Krishna Shripad Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that deployment under a government policy that provides for permanent absorption cannot be treated as deputation, and therefore repatriation or redeployment of such an employee is impermissible.
Case Title: Sushanta Dhalasamanta v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 49
The Orissa High Court granted bail to gangster Sushanta Dhalasamanta, who is a part of notorious crime syndicate Dhalasamanta Brothers/D-Brothers, in a murder case citing more than ten years of pre-trial incarceration. A Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy made it clear that mere existence of criminal antecedents against an accused do not give license to the prosecution to seek indefinite cessation of personal liberty by way of pre-trial custody.
Case Title: Bhabagrahi Das v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 50
The Orissa High Court held that retiral benefits of a delinquent employee cannot be withheld indefinitely for no fault on his part, which can only be attributed to the disciplinary authority. While quashing a 32-year-old disciplinary proceeding against 90-year-old retired employee, a Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2005), Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. (2015) and State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan (1998), where it was commonly held that though disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its normal course, but delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to be blamed for the delay.
Case Title: Amrita Das & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 51
The Orissa High Court refused to pass any interim relief in a plea challenging the Rule stipulating cut-off date to 1st April of the recruitment year to calculate three-years practice for advocates applying for Odisha Judicial Service (OJS) examination. Denying any interim relief to the aggrieved petitioners, a Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed–
“The fixation of cut-off date is an executive prerogative and deference which is coming under the Policy decision. Unless it is palpably arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or mala-fidely motivated, judicial review for altering the same is restricted. It is established principle of law that while the recruiting authority has the power to set the criteria and the cut-off date at the beginning, they cannot change the eligibility rules or cut-off mid-way through the selection process unless the original rule explicitly allow(s) for it. For all the reasons stated above and by taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of all the parties, we are not inclined to pass any interim order at this stage. Hence the application is turned down".
Case Title: Bablu Verma v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 52
The Orissa High Court held that the act of an accused putting his hand inside the pant of a minor girl/victim, even without proof of inserting finger into her vagina, amounts to 'sexual assault' within the ambit of Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Affirming the conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court, a Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed–
“This Court further finds that the conduct of the accused, namely dragging the victim, kissing her and inserting his hand inside her pant, clearly constitutes physical contact with sexual intent and squarely falls within the ambit of “sexual assault” as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Considering the age of the victim, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court in holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.”
Case Title: Trinath Guru & Anr. v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 53
The Orissa High Court held that a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) should not ordinarily be issued against an accused who is on bail, without first resorting to issuance of notice to his bailors and issuing bailable warrant, if needed. While setting aside an order directing issuance of NBW, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed–
“Liberty of a person cannot be taken away without proper procedure or it should not be dealt with lightly because custody brings lot of harassment and inconvenience to such persons deprived of the liberty. Besides, the impugned order does not reveal any compelling reason to issue NBWA. Besides, law is very clear that bail once granted should continue till it is cancelled or order granting bail is set-aside.”
Case Title: Lalit Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 54
The Orissa High Court come to the rescue of its former Registrar (Judicial) who was found guilty in a disciplinary inquiry of misplacing certain pages of an administrative file of the Court and for allegedly misguiding the then Acting Chief Justice in a promotion matter relating to the staff of the High Court establishment. While setting aside the major penalty imposed on him, the Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held–
“The concept of good faith assumes relevance in such circumstances. Good faith in administrative law and service jurisprudence does not necessarily require infallibility of judgment. It requires honesty of purpose, absence of mala fides and bona fide discharge of official duty. A subordinate officer acting transparently under recorded directions of superior authority, without concealment or personal benefit, ordinarily acts in good faith unless the directions are manifestly illegal or actuated by corrupt motive known to the subordinate officer.”
Case Title: Akhaya Kumar Rout & Anr. v. State of Odisha (Vigilance)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 55
The Orissa High Court held that a Magistrate or a Special Judge is empowered to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even without any formal prayer from investigating agency or complainant, in a case where the investigating agency has submitted a final form due to lack of evidence. Clarifying the position of law vis-à-vis power of Court to direct further investigation, a Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–
“The power of a Magistrate or a Special Judge to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra. This power is imbued with the purpose of advancing the cause of justice and ensuring an investigation that is comprehensive, fair, and effective. Ergo, the mere absence of a formal prayer for further investigation from either the Vigilance Department or the complainant does not per se divest the Court of its inherent jurisdiction to issue such a direction if the factual matrix so warrants.”
Case Title: Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. Manoranjan Kumbhar, IIC, Bisra Police Station, Rourkela
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 56
The Orissa High Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to pass necessary instructions to the Superintendents of Police (SPs) all across the State to ensure regular and strict execution of judicial orders by police officials, especially at the level of Inspectors In-Charge (IICs). While deciding a suo moto contempt proceeding initiated against an IIC for misplacing a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) and giving wrong instruction to the Court about its non-issuance by the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho observed–
“Unfortunately, ignoring the orders of the Magistrate is not the forte of the IIC Bisra Police Station only. After being given the assignment of CRLMPs (applications under Article – 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which arise out of criminal cases), I have come across a number of cases where there is allegation against the IICs of different Police Stations all over the State that they have scant regard for judicial orders and directions, for which the aggrieved persons have to approach this Court.”
Case Title: Smt. Subasini Dei v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 57
The Orissa High Court expressed disappointment over lackadaisical attitude of police resulting in eight-months delay in registration of FIR despite Magisterial order in a case concerning financial exploitation of an elderly woman from the Scheduled Caste community. Dismissing the explanation furnished by the concerned Inspector-In-Charge (IIC), the Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho observed–
“It is possible for files and orders to be misplaced. But unfortunately, this is not a stray case. I have dealt with several writ applications (CRLMPs) where the grievance of the petitioner is that the orders passed or directions issued by the Magistrates or Judges of the Family Court are not being complied by the local police, in spite of several adjournments and reminders. The stock excuse of the IICs in such cases is that the file/ order/NBW got misplaced and in a few cases that the incumbent joined recently.”
Case Title: Subash Chandra Panda v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 58
The Orissa High Court held that the cautionary observation of a Magistrate, while rejecting a plea seeking cancellation of bail, asking parties not to file “frivolous and vexatious petitions in future” is interlocutory in nature, which cannot be challenged in revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Reversing the findings of the Sessions Judge vis-à-vis nature of such order, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi ruled–
“A direction to refrain from filing frivolous and vexatious litigation does not decide any substantive right of the parties in the main proceeding nor does it amount to a final determination on the question of cancellation of bail. It remains in the realm of procedural directions aimed at preventing misuse of court processes.”
Case Title: Suresh Kumar Mohapatra @ Suria v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 59
The Orissa High Court ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) to put out a circular mandating all the concerned police officials of the State to mandatorily provide grounds of arrest in the arrest memorandum in a language understood by the accused/arrestee.
While declining to quash the arrest and remand of certain persons accused of peddling ganja in excess of commercial quantity, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi stressed that technical objections cannot be over-emphasized to grant relief to accused at the cost of public interest at large. The Judge further observed–
“It is a well-settled principle that ignorance of law cannot be taken as an excuse. If such a plea is permitted to be accepted in a routine manner, it would virtually render the criminal justice process otiose and ineffective, leading to a situation where accused persons may seek to evade due process of law on technical pleas, thereby frustrating legitimate prosecution. Such an interpretation would not only impede the course of justice but also create a situation where undertrial prisoners and offenders alike may misuse procedural safeguards to avoid lawful custody, thereby adversely affecting the administration of criminal justice and public interest at large.”
Case Title: Batakrushna Dehury v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
The Orissa High Court held that a Magistrate cannot unilaterally cancel/recall his previous order under Section 457 CrPC granting interim release/zima of a seized property in favour of a party, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the zimadar, except in case of violation of conditions of such release. A Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi was of the view that any substantial modification of the interim release order would have the effect of review or revision, which is barred under Section 362, CrPC. While setting aside an impugned Magisterial order, the Judge further opined–
“The learned Magistrate did not purport to cancel the release on the ground of violation of any condition. Instead, he proceeded to re-appreciate the entire factual matrix concerning ownership of the vehicle including the alleged sale deed, the tax invoice, the No Objection Certificate, and the repayment records and concluded that the Petitioner's claim was improbable. This is nothing short of a review and revision of a previous final order on the merits, which is expressly prohibited by law.”
Case Title: Vepanjeri Dileep Kumar v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 61
The Orissa High Court held that whenever a person is arrested without warrant outside the State, the arresting officer must immediately inform the jurisdictional court of the date, time and place of arrest through electronic means, including e-mail.
Issuing a slew of guidelines to ensure fairness in arrests made outside the jurisdiction of the court, Justice Gourishankar Satapathy directed that such information be reflected in the court record upon receipt so that compliance with the mandatory safeguards governing arrest and detention can subsequently be verified.
The directions were issued while granting bail to a man after finding that his arrest and detention violated the constitutional mandate under Article 22(2) and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), inasmuch as he was produced before the Magistrate beyond the 24 hours outer-limit.
Case Title: State of Odisha & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Bhainsa & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 62
The Orissa High Court upheld an order passed by a Single Bench in 2024 which directed the government to release the accrued salary of a lecturer who has been denied pay since November, 2022 on the ground of pending disciplinary proceeding. Providing relief to the employee, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that pendency of a disciplinary proceeding per se is not a ground for denying salary to a working employee since it violates the salutary principle enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Babu Das v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 63
The Orissa High Court acquitted a man who was convicted by a Sessions Court in 2003 for committing murder of a person suspecting him to be practising witchcraft. Finding lack of evidence against the appellant/convict and significant gaps in the prosecution case, the Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sashikanta Mishra held–
“Defence has not disputed the nature of death being homicidal but then the authorship of the crime cannot be proved by medical evidence alone. As discussed above, the medical evidence does not find any support from the ocular so as to point the needle of guilt at the accused...Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court has not taken note of the aforementioned vital aspects and the apparent gaps in evidence. On the other hand, the trial Court has shifted the burden at times to the defence, which cannot be countenanced in law.”
Case Title: Shri Lambodar Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 64
The Orissa High Court dismissed a writ petition in the nature habeas corpus filed by a husband and imposed an exemplary cost of rupees fifty thousand on him for litigating to secure custody of his wife, who had left matrimonial home out of her own volition due to marital disharmony. Terming the case to be a “classical example” of husband pressurizing wife of conjugal union against her will through a habeas corpus petition, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed–
“Obviously, the wife is a major and capable of taking decision of her life and cannot be treated as a chattel in the hands of her husband. If she has decided to live apart for the alleged torture having perpetrated upon her, this forum cannot be used to secure her presence before this Court and/or in the matrimonial house. The moment the discordant relationship between the husband and wife grows, the allegation and the counter allegation started pouring and in a recent time the writ in the nature of habeas corpus is filed which cannot be said to be a genuine attempt but a device to settle the personal score.”
Can Production Warrant Override A Subsisting 'No Coercive Action' Order? Orissa High Court Answers
Case Title: Kartika Lama @ Bahadur @ Kartik v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 65
The Orissa High Court held that a 'production warrant' under Section 267 of the CrPC cannot be issued against an accused, violating an interim protection order of the higher Court, merely because he is already lodged in the judicial custody in connection with another case. While setting aside production warrant and subsequent police remand order, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed–
“In the considered opinion of this Court, once such protection had been granted by this Court and the same continued to remain in force, the learned trial court ought to have exercised due caution while considering the prayer of the Investigating Officer seeking remand of the petitioner in connection with the present case. The materials on record reveal that the aforesaid interim order of this Court had been brought to the notice of the learned trial court.”
Case Title: State of Odisha & Anr. v. Amita Mohapatra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 66
The Orissa High Court held that the State cannot abruptly and arbitrarily remove a person holding a non-sanctioned temporary post, on the ground of contractual nature of her service or financial and administrative constraints for regularization, after extracting regular work from her for decades. While upholding a Single Bench order which granted relief to a lady Pharmacist who was terminated after 14-years of continued service, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed–
“The principle emerging from the aforesaid decisions is that the State cannot indefinitely extract work of a perennial nature through temporary arrangements and thereafter rely upon administrative or financial considerations to justify continued insecurity of employment. The constitutional obligation of fairness does not cease merely because the engagement is described as contractual.”