Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 67 – 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 87

Nominal Index

Sarat Majhi v. State of Orissa and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 67

State of Odisha and others v. Sagarika Parida, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 68

Sri Biswaranjan Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 69

Ramesh Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 70

Dr. Kamala Tirkey @ Swain @ Kamala Tirky v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 71

State (N.I.A.), Bhubaneswar v. Gameli Chinna Rao, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 72

Ashok Kumar Mangaraj v. Manasi Sahoo, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 73

Jaya Chandra Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 74

Pravat Ranjan Biswal v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 75

Sumitra Dhal & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 76

Sourava Rout & Anr. v. Odisha Legislative Assembly & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 77

Smt. Sunita Nayak v. Anup Kumar Tota, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 78

S v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 79

Pramod Bariha & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 80

Mahesh Kumar Sahu & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 81

Sridhar Mantry & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 82

Pravat Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 83

Minati Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 84

Rajesh Khilla @ Khila @ Khillo v. State of Orissa, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 85

AKM v. SM & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 86

Bikram Mohapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 87

Reported Judgments/Orders

'Complete Apathy': Concerned By Police Treatment Of Juvenile, Orissa High Court Registers PIL Over 'Rampant Violation' Of JJ Act

Case Title: Sarat Majhi v. State of Orissa and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 67

Taking a grim view of the police administration's handling of a minor inside a police station, the Orissa High Court converted a habeas corpus writ petition into a regular Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to comprehensively tackle the “rampant violation and/or implementation” of various provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act concerning children. A Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that there is "a complete apathy which is shown by the Police Administration in inculcating the sense of responsibility while treating the child, whether in conflict with law or otherwise".

Employee Can't Be Terminated For Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Case Without Proof They Knew About It: Orissa HC

Case Title: State of Odisha and others v. Sagarika Parida

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 68

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that suppression of information in a verification form must be of a 'material' fact, and penal action is not warranted if the candidate lacked knowledge of the criminal case, especially where the case was trivial or ended in acquittal.

'Population Explosion More Dangerous Than Hydrogen Bomb': Orissa High Court Upholds Disqualification For Having More Than Two Children

Case Title: Sri Biswaranjan Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 69

“Population explosion is more dangerous than hydrogen bomb,” the Orissa High Court quoted British Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell as it upheld a Single Bench order affirming the disqualification of the President of a cooperative society for breaching the “two-child policy”. While denying relief to the appellant, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash made a cautionary note of the devastating effects of population explosion. In the words of the Court–

“Overpopulation being a complex & multifaceted global issue presents a mammoth challenge to the delicate balance of our only planet and its limited resources. The unchecked population growth places immense strain on environmental, societal & economic systems. There is almost a global unanimity of opinion that overpopulation causes environmental degradation, resource scarcity and intensified societal challenges.”

S.31 CrPC/ S.25 BNSS | Court Can't Order Consecutive Sentences For Offences Committed In 'Single Transaction': Orissa High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 70

The Orissa High Court held that a Court, while convicting and imposing punishment on an accused for commission of more than one offence, cannot order respective sentences to run consecutively if the offences are committed in a 'single transaction'. Reiterating the Apex Court ruling in O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2014), the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh modified the consecutive sentence imposed on the petitioner and ordered it to run concurrently, since the offences were committed in a single transaction.

Orissa High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctor Accused Of Helping Husband Cheat Women Through Sham Marriages

Case Title: Dr. Kamala Tirkey @ Swain @ Kamala Tirky v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 71

The Orissa High Court denied to quash criminal case against a doctor-wife accused of being an accomplice to her husband in inducing multiple women to illegally enter into marriage with the latter in order to exploit them financially. Noting that a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the case, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi was not inclined to grant any relief at this stage. Upon perusing the prima facie materials available in the case, the Court remarked–

“Marriage, in its idealized conception, is spoken of as a sacrament which is a union sanctified by trust, in which two strangers agree to become each other's keepers. But when that same institution is reduced to an instrument of commerce, when a wedding invitation becomes a charge-sheet, and a matrimonial home becomes the scene of an alleged economic offence, the Court is called upon to separate the grain of genuine matrimonial discord from the chaff of a well-oiled confidence trick. The present CRLMC compels this Court to walk precisely that line.”

S. 311 CrPC | Court Can't Refuse To Examine Witness Merely Because He Is A 'Surrendered Maoist': Orissa High Court

Case Title: State (N.I.A.), Bhubaneswar v. Gameli Chinna Rao

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 72

The Orissa High Court held that a trial Court cannot decline to summon a witness, under Section 311 of the CrPC, to examine and record his testimony merely on the ground that he has previously been a Maoist. While setting aside the trial Court order denying to summon a surrendered Maoist as a witness, the Bench Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that at the stage of summoning of witness, the Court must not be bothered by the “evidentiary worth” of such witness.  In the words of the Court –

“The principal reason appearing from the impugned order is that the witness is a surrendered Maoist. In the considered view of this Court, such circumstance by itself cannot constitute a valid ground to refuse his examination. The evidentiary value of the testimony of a witness is a matter for appreciation at the stage of final adjudication after the witness is examined and subjected to cross-examination. At the stage of considering an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court is concerned with the relevance of the proposed evidence and not with its ultimate evidentiary worth.”

Trial Court Not Bound To Incorporate Questions Suggested By Prosecution Or Accused Under Section 313(5) CrPC: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Mangaraj v. Manasi Sahoo

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 73

The Orissa High Court held that it is not mandatory, rather discretionary for a trial Court to seek help of prosecution and defence for preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused under Section 313(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for eliciting his explanation to the inculpatory circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. While clarifying the true purport of Section 313(5) CrPC [akin to Section 351(5) BNSS], which provides that the Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–

“However, a plain and purposive reading of Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that the said provision is enabling in nature and vests discretion in the Court, rather than creating any mandatory obligation to incorporate questions as suggested by the parties. The scheme of Section 313 Cr.P.C., including sub-section (5), leaves it to the judicial wisdom of the trial Court to determine the necessity, relevance, and propriety of framing or incorporating any specific questions, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Compulsory Retirement For 22-Day Unauthorised Absence Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Grants Relief To Disabled Railway Employee

Case Title: Jaya Chandra Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 74

The Orissa High Court ordered 50% back wages along with retiral benefits to a disabled former railway employee who was compulsorily retired from service in 2012 for proceeding on an unsanctioned leave of “twenty-two and half days” to attend his ailing mother. Finding the punishment to be severely disproportionate to the alleged indiscipline, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed–

“The punishment imposed bears little proportion to the misconduct alleged. The authorities appear to have treated the Petitioner's absence as an infraction warranting the severest possible civil consequences short of dismissal or removal. Such an approach overlooks not only the surrounding circumstances under which the absence occurred but also the Petitioner's long tenure of service, his physical condition and the absence of any finding that his conduct was actuated by deliberate defiance of authority. The resultant punishment, therefore, travels beyond the realm of disciplinary correction and enters the domain of disproportionality.”

Seashore Chit Fund Scam: Orissa High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Against Ex-BJD MLA Pravat Ranjan Biswal

Case Title: Pravat Ranjan Biswal v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 75

The Orissa High Court declined to quash the impending criminal prosecution against the Biju Janata Dal's (BJD) former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Cuttack-Choudwar constituency Pravat Ranjan Biswal for his alleged links with the Seashore Group of Companies. While the Court was not inclined to quash the case at this advanced stage, it asked the Special Judge, CBI-1, Bhubaneswar to expedite the trial and conclude the same within next six (6) months.

Magistrate Must Disclose 'Substance Of Information' While Issuing S.126 BNSS Notice To Execute Bond For Keeping Peace: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Sumitra Dhal & Ors. v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 76

The Orissa High Court ruled that an Executive Magistrate is duty-bound to disclose the 'substance of information' received by him while issuing show-cause notice to a person to explain why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping peace under Section 126 BNSS. Stressing on the importance of the aforesaid critical legal requirement as mandated under Section 130 of the BNSS, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–

“Section 130 of the BNSS mandates that before calling upon a person to show cause under Section 126, the Magistrate shall set forth in writing the substance of the information received. The requirement is intended to disclose the basic grounds on which preventive action is considered necessary…Although the provision speaks of the “substance of the information”, it does not mean that the order should not be comprehensive. The order need not reproduce the information verbatim; however, it must give proper notice of what moved the Magistrate to initiate the proceedings.”

Orissa High Court Grants Relief To Selected Legislative Assembly Reporters, Says Can't Cancel Appointment Arbitrarily When Posts Are Vacant

Case Title: Sourava Rout & Anr. v. Odisha Legislative Assembly & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 77

The Orissa High Court held that the State cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to selected candidates in a public service and it is liable to show reason for non-consideration of their candidatures, especially when large number of posts remain vacant in that cadre. Allowing a writ petition filed by two candidates whose selection as Reporters in the Odisha Legislative Assembly was arbitrarily cancelled, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra held–

“Just because discretion has been vested with the Authority, it does not mean such discretion can be exercised arbitrarily. Law is also well settled that when the employer is the State, it must give some justifiable non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post and it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot, without any rhyme or reason, decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts.”

Does Refusal By Family Members To Accept Court Notice Amount To Valid Service? Orissa High Court Answers

Case Title: Smt. Sunita Nayak v. Anup Kumar Tota

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 78

The Orissa High Court reiterated that when an addressee refuses to receive summons/notice and the same is thus affixed to the outer door or some other conspicuous part of his house, the Court can presume its valid and sufficient service upon him as per illustration (f) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Order V Rule 9(5) as well as Rule 19 of the CPC. Highlighting significant backlog of cases due to debatable nature of 'sufficiency' in service of notice/summons, the Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra remarked–

“Delay and prolongation of the judicial process are largely attributable to the hindrances that occur in the service of summons/notices upon the parties. Quite often, we encounter situations where, even if notice is sent to the correct address, the postal endorsement leaves the matter in an ambiguous state, making the determination of sufficient service a debatable question.”

Orissa High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction, Orders Victim To Refund Compensation As She Turned Hostile

Case Title: S v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 79

The Orissa High Court set aside the judgment of a Special Court under the POCSO Act, which found a man guilty of committing repeated penetrative sexual assault with a minor girl, on account of lack of substantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime and even the victim turning hostile against the prosecution. Giving relief to the accused-appellant, the Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra also noted that the victim and the accused have subsequently married and they have begotten a child out of the wedlock. Significantly, the Court also ordered the victim to return the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- (rupees seven lakhs), which was granted to her under the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 by the trial Court, as she turned hostile.

Victim's Sexual History Cannot Be Used To Discredit Rape Allegation: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Pramod Bariha & Anr. v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 80

The Orissa High Court held that a rape trial cannot be a “victim-blaming” exercise and deprecated the submissions made on behalf of a rape accused whereby the character of the victim was questioned by suggesting that she was “habituated to sexual intercourse”. Asserting that a rape trial cannot be converted to an inquiry into the character of the victim, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed–

“It is difficult to appreciate how such an argument could have been advanced at all, in the face of the clear statutory position and the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in sexual offences. What legal consequence can possibly follow from the observation that the prosecutrix was “habituated to sexual intercourse”? Does it disprove the occurrence alleged? Does it establish consent? Does it render the testimony of a minor victim less credible in law? The answer to each of these questions is plainly in the negative.”

Also Read: POCSO Act | Date Of Birth In School Records Can't Be Disputed In Appeal Without Specific Challenge During Cross-Examination: Orissa High Court

'May Affect Peace In Society': Orissa High Court Stays Release Of Animated Movie 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' Ahead Of Rath Yatra

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Sahu & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 81

The Orissa High Court stayed the release of an animated movie titled 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath', based on certain fictional accounts involving Lord Jagannath, which was slated to be released on July 17 in three different languages. While directing the producer to temporarily halt the release of the movie, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman expressed apprehension about its possible effect on public order, especially when the Rath Yatra is scheduled to be held on July 16. The Bench thus remarked–

“Even if the movie enjoins the guarantee of the freedom of expression and/or speech, but it impacted the thoughts and the action of the common people and, therefore should ensure high degree of attention and retention. At times it creates an immediate influence and at times may shatter the sentiments, the emotions and the religious belief, which cannot be allowed, if it results in unrest in the peaceful society. The motive to release the film may also be one of the facets to be borne in mind at a particular point of time, which may invite an immediate and prompt reaction having cascading effect, that would corrode the fabric resultantly affecting the peace in the society.”

'Shattering Confidence Of Hardworking Youth': Orissa High Court Denies Bail To 14 Accused In ASO Exam Paper Leak

Case Title: Sridhar Mantry & Ors. v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 82

The Orissa High Court denied bail to 14 persons accused of sabotaging the High Court Assistant Section Officer (ASO) Examination, 2024-25 by leaking the question paper and model answers to prospective candidates for illicit financial gains, which ultimately led to cancellation of mains examination last year. Holding the alleged act as a crime against the very social fabric, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held –

“Sabotaging the exam in this way by leaking the question papers and supplying the model answer sheets to the aspiring candidates definitely corrodes the morale of meritorious candidates and the allegation against the petitioner definitely reveals a crime against society, which cannot be accepted in any way and the allegation against the petitioners depicts a socio economic offence of huge magnitude and no civilized society can ever accept the leaking of question papers in recruitment examination to Government posts.”

Degree From Unauthorized Institution Is Invalid But Not Fraud Unless Active Role Of Candidate Proved: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Pravat Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 83

The Orissa High Court come to the rescue of a government employee who was demoted from his post allegedly for submitting fake/fictitious certificate to prove his qualification. Delineating the difference between a fictitious/fabricated degree and a degree conferred by an unauthorized institution, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held–

“What pains us is the mindless & arbitrary act of the answering Respondents in not noticing the subtle difference that exists between a fictitious certificate of qualification and the one secured by the candidate at the hands of an institution that was enlisted by the Regulatory Bodies such as UGC & AICTE as not being authorized to award degree/diploma to the students. It is not the case of Respondent that the Appellant has perpetrated any act of fraud or fabrication.”

Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Torching Vehicles Near High Court Premises

Case Title: Minati Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 84

The Orissa High Court granted bail to a woman who, in March this year, threw a burnt bottle containing petrol towards the High Court premises as a result of which four vehicles parked nearby the boundary wall caught fire and were damaged. Considering the fact that the accused-petitioner is a lady who has a five-year-old son, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held–

“…there appears allegation against the petitioner for throwing bottle containing petrol with fire to the vehicles and causing damage to four vehicles by fire, but the petitioner herself is not only a lady, but also she is having a five years child, however, the child is remaining outside the jail as submitted. No doubt, there is serious objection and opposition to the bail application of the petitioner, but at the end, the petitioner herself being a lady is also entitled to the benefit of first proviso appended to Section 480 of BNSS.”

Giving Inadequate Grounds Doesn't Automatically Vitiate Arrest Unless Accused Is Prejudiced: Orissa High Court Cites 'Sonam Raghuvanshi' Case

Case Title: Rajesh Khilla @ Khila @ Khillo v. State of Orissa

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 85

The Orissa High Court held that the police furnishing inadequate grounds of arrest to the arrestee may not always vitiate the arrest, and it is vitiated only when such communication of inadequate grounds causes prejudice to the arrestee. While explaining the difference between “non-communication of reasons of arrest” and “inadequate communication of reasons of arrest”, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy placed explicit reliance on the recent order of the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi. The Judge observed–

“In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra), inadequate/defective service of grounds of arrest by itself may not vitiate the arrest, unless prejudice appears to have been caused to the arrestee for want of compliance and such prejudice caused to the arrestee must be established by him to make him entitle for the relief of bail.”

Maintenance Granted Under HAMA Can't Be Enhanced Under Section 127 CrPC: Orissa High Court

Case Title: AKM v. SM & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 86

The Orissa High Court held that a Family Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to enhance maintenance amount when the original maintenance order was passed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). While setting aside the impugned order which was passed on such jurisdictional error, the Bench of Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed–

“It is seen that somehow, the judgment under challenge, passed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. also does not refer to the earlier application or the judgment and order made therein under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAM Act, 1956. The probable reason for the learned court to proceed erroneously was absence of copy of the petition earlier filed purportedly under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the records of judgment rendered therein whereas there was no petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.”

Orissa High Court Orders ₹30,000 Compensation For Man's Prima Facie Illegal Arrest Through Forged NBW

Case Title: Bikram Mohapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 87

The Orissa High Court ordered payment of ₹30,000 as compensation to a 63-year-old man after finding that he was prima facie illegally arrested and detained on the basis of a counterfeit non-bailable warrant (NBW). The Court also directed separate enquiries by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Bhubaneswar and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Cuttack into the circumstances leading to the illegal arrest. Expressing serious concern over such misuse resulting in curtailment of liberty of a senior citizen, the Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed–

“When the report of the learned court below and such an affidavit as at Flag-15 reveal that someone played mischief in the issuance of NBW/A which ultimately led to the arrest of the petitioner and admittedly, resulted in his illegal detention, this Court is inclined to direct the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar to hold an enquiry in to the same and to take necessary action in that regard.”