Orissa High Court
Aditya Narayan Sahu vs State Of Odisha on 4 August, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.248 of 2025
Aditya Narayan Sahu .... Appellant(s)
Mr. Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 04.08.2025
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
As per the order dated 08.05.2025, learned
counsel for the appellant filed 161 Cr.P.C. statements
of the two witnesses, namely, Anil Nayak and Santosh
Sabat.
On perusal of the their statements, it appears
that they were the eye witnesses to the occurrence and
in the charge-sheet dated 07.05.2009, which is
annexed to the Criminal Appeal Memo as Annexure-2,
the names of those two eye witnesses found place as
C.S.W Nos.7 and 8. From the order-sheet of the trial
court, it appears that on 27.11.2024, the SR of Anil
Nayak and Sunil Panigrahy were back after affixture
service and accordingly, the learned trial Court directed
for issuance of fresh summons. However, on
10.12.2024, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed a
memo to decline the eye witnesses and closed the
prosecution evidence.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no
reason has been assigned for declining the two eye
witnesses to the occurrence and that was one of the
main reasons on the part of the learned trial Court to
pass the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of
the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. He further submits that
had those two witnesses been examined and supported
the prosecution case, the result of the trial would have
been otherwise. According to the learned counsel for
the appellant, the act of the Public Prosecutor in
declining the eye witnesses is totally unfair and it has
caused serious prejudice to the appellant-informant in
the present case.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the trial Court records.
Issue notice to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the State accepts notice for
the respondent No.1.
So far as the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are
concerned, requisites for issuance of notice with proof
of delivery shall be filed within a week. The notice shall
be made returnable within four weeks.
Issue warrant of arrest against respondent Nos.2
to 4 as per Section 390 of Cr.P.C. (Section 431 of
BNSS) indicating therein that if they appear before the
learned trial Court within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of notice, they shall be released on
bail on such terms and conditions, as the learned trial
Court deemed, fit and proper. Learned trial Court shall
intimate this Court about the release of the respondent
Nos.2 to 4 on bail.
Learned counsel for the State shall also obtain
instruction in the meantime that in view of the order of
acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in declining
the eye witnesses to the occurrence whether the State
is contemplating to file any appeal challenging the
order of acquittal.
Put up this matter in the week commencing from
15th September, 2025.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S.S. Mishra)
Ashok/Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Aug-2025 19:07:11
