[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ashok Kumar Padhan vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 9 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.93 of 2026
Ashok Kumar Padhan ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Devashis Panda
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
Mr. K.A. Guru, Adv.
for Informant
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.01.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner files a copy of the petition
filed under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 of Cr.P.C. as
well as the objection filed thereto and certified copy of order dated
29.10.2025. The same is taken on record.
3. Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner
as well as Mr. K. A. Guru learned counsel for the Informant and
learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the
prayer made therein.
4. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the accused-Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court to quash order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.26 of 2022, which
corresponds to Katarbaga P.S. Case No.165 of 2021. On perusal of
the record, it appears that the Petitioner has been implicated as an
accused in the above noted P.S. Case which was initially registered
for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
After conclusion of the investigation a charge-sheet has been filed
and the trial has substantially progressed in the meantime.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
during the trial the accused-Petitioner initially moved an application
under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 of Cr.P.C. with a
prayer to summon some of the witnesses, including some of the
charge-sheeted witnesses, who are material witnesses for a just
decision of the case. An objection was filed by the learned Public
Prosecutor to the above noted application. After considering the
contention of both the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned
Sessions Judge, Sambalpur disposed of the application vide order
dated 29.10.2025, thereby partly allowing the application and
permitting issuance of summons to the witnesses, namely 1. Kishore
Padhan, 2. Jiten Sahu, 3. Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail,
Sambalpur & 4. Medical Officer, Circle Jail, Sambalpur.
6. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted
that during trial another application at Annexure-2 was moved under
Section 233 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 of Cr.P.C. at the
instance of the accused-Petitioner with a prayer to summon Dr.
Lambodar Bagar (CSW No.11) for his examination with regard to
the injury report submitted in respect of the injury sustained by the
accused and to produce a relevant entry in P.S. SDE from 6 P.M. of
dated 16.09.2021 till 6 P.M. of dated 17.09.2021 as well as all
medical treatment records of the injured accused, Ashok Kumar
Padhan. Such application was objected to by the prosecution on the
ground that a similar prayer was earlier made and the same was
rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29.10.2025.
7. The subsequent application summoning Dr. Lambodar Bagar
(CSW No.11) and for production of the documents as indicated in
the petition at Annexure-2 was taken up for consideration by the
learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur and the same was rejected vide
order dated 02.01.2026. While rejecting the aforesaid petition at
Annexure-2 dated 02.01.2026, the learned Sessions Judge,
Sambalpur, after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State
of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1369, rejected the application on
the ground that the earlier application of the Petitioner with a self-
same prayer has already been considered and rejected. Being
aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present application.
8. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that every accused being a citizen of the country, has been
given a guarantee of a fair trial under the Constitution of India. So
far the present case is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that based on the charges faced by the Petitioner, there is
every likelihood that in the event the Petitioner is found guilty, he
might be subjected to capital punishment. On such ground, Mr.
Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the accused-
Petitioner should be given full opportunity to defend his case
keeping in view the constitutional guarantee provided to every
citizen. By relying upon the aforesaid principle, learned counsel for
the Petitioner contended that the rejection order passed earlier was
not specific and that while disposing of the previous application vide
order dated 29.10.2025, the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur
permitted examination of four witnesses after directing issuance of
summons to such witnesses. So far Dr. Lambodar Bagar (CSW
No.11) is concerned, it has been observed that it is not essential to
issue summons to him as the medical evidence is a corroborative
piece of evidence. The aforesaid observation of the learned trial
Court was strongly objected to by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner on the ground that the same infringes the valuable right of
the Petitioner to a fair trial.
9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the
prayer made in the present application. Learned counsel for the State
at the outset contended that the learned trial Court has not committed
any illegality in passing the order dated 02.01.2026. He further
contended that the earlier application of the Petitioner, with a prayer
to issue summons to Dr. Lambodar Bagar (CSW No.11) was
specifically dealt with by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the
subsequent application is not maintainable in law. On such ground,
learned counsel for the State contended that the application filed by
the Petitioner has been rightly rejected and the same does not call for
any interference by this Court at this stage.
10. Mr. K.A. Guru, learned counsel for the Informant on the other
hand contended that the trial has progressed substantially and now it
has been posted for further argument. He further contended that the
filing of the application dated 02.01.2026 at Annexure-2 is nothing
but an attempt to prolong the trial. Moreover, a similar prayer having
been rejected earlier by the learned trial Court, and the same having
not been challenged by the accused Petitioner, has attained finality
in the meantime. On such ground, learned counsel for the Informant
contended that the application filed on 02.01.2026 is a superfluous
application filed with the intention to prolong the trial and that the
trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting such
application vide order dated 02.01.2026. Accordingly, it was prayed
that the application filed by the Petitioner, being devoid of merit, is
liable to be dismissed.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful
examination of order dated 02.01.2026, this Court found that the
prayer of the accused-Petitioner to recall Dr. Lambodar Bagar (CSW
No.11) for his examination and for production of certain medical
examination related documents has been rejected by the learned trial
Court on the ground of delay likely to be caused in the trial as well
as on the ground that such a prayer was rejected earlier by the
learned trial Court. On a perusal of the record, it appears that the
Petitioner had, in fact, earlier filed an application dated 17.10.2025
for summoning of certain witnesses. A specific prayer was also
made therein for a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Circle
Jail, Sambalpur to produce all medical treatment related evidence of
the injured-accused, Ashok Kumar Padhan.
12. Upon a careful consideration of the earlier application, the
learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur vide order dated 29.10.2025
permitted four witnesses to be summoned excluding Dr. Lambodar
Bagar (CSW No.11) and there was no direction for production of
any documents by the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail,
Sambalpur or the Medical Officer, Circle Jail, Sambalpur. Being
aggrieved by such order, the accused-Petitioner moved another
application with a specific prayer to summon Dr. Lambodar Bagar
(CSW No.11) and to produce the medical record with regard to the
treatment of the injured accused-Petitioner. Such application having
been rejected by the learned trial Court, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present application.
13. On a careful analysis of the submission made by the learned
counsels appearing for both sides, further on a close scrutiny of the
factual background of the present case, this Court observes that the
accused-Petitioner is facing trial for the charges under Section 302
of IPC. The severity of the punishment that is likely to be inflicted
on the Petitioner in the event the Petitioner is found guilty is not
unknown. Moreover, keeping in view the constitutional principle of
fair trial as guaranteed to every citizen, this Court is of the
considered view that every accused is entitled to a fair opportunity to
present his case or to defend himself. In furtherance of the aforesaid
constitutional principle, the learned trial Court had earlier exercised
the power under the Cr.P.C. to issue summons to some of the
witnesses. However, one witness, i.e. Dr. Lambodar Bagar (CSW
No.11) was not summoned.
14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended
that he will be satisfied in the event this Court directs examination of
the above named Dr. Lambodar Bagar (CSW No.11) in a time bound
manner and if the command certificate directing examination of the
injured-accused is produced before the Court. Learned counsel for
the Informant on the other hand did not raise any objection to the
suggestion that in the event this Court fixes a time limit for
examination of the above named witness and for production of such
documents.
15. In view of the aforesaid analysis and observations, this Court
is inclined to set aside order dated 02.01.2026. Further, the learned
trial Court is directed to summon Dr. Lambodar Bagar (CSW No.11)
and examine him within two weeks from the date of communication
of a copy of today's order. Such examination shall be carried out and
concluded on a particular day and the witness shall be discharged on
the same date. Further, in the meantime the command certificate for
medical examination of the accused-Petitioner shall also be filed.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further undertook that he shall not
file any unnecessary petition and cause delay in conclusion of the
trial. Keeping in view the fact that the trial is at its fag end, the
present application is being disposed of by directing the learned trial
Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of two months.
16. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order in course of the day as
per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Reason: Authentication Page 7 of 7.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:39:11
