The Orissa High Court has recently rejected a petition filed by two accused persons who had sought for transfer of an ongoing trial against them relating to a 2024 acid attack case on a 64-year-old lawyer on the ground of repeated obstruction in the proceedings and non-cooperation of Advocates of the local Bar. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 112]

While turning down the request to transfer the case, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra deemed it proper to order an in-camera trial. The Judge observed–

“In view of the sensitiveness of the issue involved in S.T. Case No.41 of 2025, and the concern of the accused persons, as detailed above, this Court is of the view that an in-camera trial of the proceeding would be a just and proper course to mitigate the grievance of the accused persons in the present transfer petition.”

An elderly lawyer named P. Rama Rao, also a member of the Paralakhemundi Bar Association in the district of Gajapati, was allegedly attacked in 2024 by two unidentified miscreants who knocked on his door and threw acid at him as he opened the door and fled away from the spot.

After filing of the charge-sheet, the trial started before the Court of Sessions Judge, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi. The accused-petitioners filed this transfer petition urging the High Court to transfer the trial of the case from the Court of Sessions Judge, Gajapati to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganjam at Berhampur on the grounds of obstruction and non-cooperation in the trial by the Advocates of the Paralakhemundi Bar Association.

Senior Advocate Lalatendu Samantaray, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that since the victim is Advocate and a member of the aforesaid Bar Association, most of the Bar members are remaining present, thereby creating a scary atmosphere inside the Court Room, which may affect a fair trial and proper adjudication.

Opposing such prayer, the State relied upon the instruction received from the Registrar, Civil Courts, Gajapati who revealed that out of twenty-five prosecution witnesses, six witnesses have already been examined and further proceeding have been delayed due to non-appearance of other prosecution witnesses. He also refuted the claim of the accused that continuation of the case at Paralakhemundi will cause financial stringency for them.

Additionally, the Registrar informed that he had not received any resolution from the Bar Association regarding non-cooperation in the case and he expressed confidence that the trial in the case is going on smoothly, without any external influence or pressure.

The counsel appearing for the informant (then Secretary of the Paralakhemundi Bar Association) also submitted that there is no Bar resolution against the petitioners and allegations of non-cooperation/obstruction are false. Further relying upon the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court in Shaheen Malik v. Union of India, it was stressed that acid attack cases ought to be tried and disposed of in a time bound manner. Such timely disposal may be disrupted if the transfer petition is entertained, he argued.

Upon hearing the rival contentions and especially taking into account the instructions received from the Registrar, Civil Courts, Gajapati, the Court was not inclined to entertain the transfer petition. However, acknowledging the sensitive nature of the case, the Court asked the Sessions Judge to adopt “in-camera” procedure for trial of the case. It directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial and arrive at a conclusion at the earliest. The Court also urged the Bar Association to ensure smooth trial, without obstructions and hindrances.

So far as the request to fix a timeline for the trial was concerned, the Court asked the Sessions Judge to conduct the case in tandem with the High Court's circular dated 01.05.2026, which was issued to all the Sessions Courts subsequent to the order of the Apex Court in Shaheen Malik (supra). Justice Mishra also impressed upon the trial Court to scrupulously follow the directives given in The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman alias Ara alias Mur Usman Ali, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 949 in order to ensure day-to-day trial.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Case Title: Dakoju Venkat Rao & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Case No: TPCRL No. 45 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. B.P. Panda, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. M.K. Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel; Mr. A. Das, Advocate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 112

Click Here To Read/Download Order