[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Chandrakanta @ Chagala Das vs State Of Odisha on 29 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 1710 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.)
Chandrakanta @ Chagala Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. Superintendent of Police,
Bhadrak
3. IIC, Bansada P.S., Bhadrak .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Sarojananda Mishra, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
29.01.2026
Savitri Ratho, J. The CRLMP has been filed praying that investigation of the
Bansada P.S. Case No.335 of 2025 (incorrectly mentioned as
Bhadrak P.S.) be conducted by an independent superior officer in the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and further directing the
police to arrest all the accused persons involved in the murder of the
son of the Petitioner without delay.
FACT OF THE CASE
2. That the brief fact of the case is that, due to previous
enmity, the culprits namely, Kuta Majhi, Kuni Ray, Ranjan Bal,
Arun Jena along with some other culprits have murdered Petitioner's
22-year-old son Sipun Das, after calling him out of his house at
night on 07-08.11.2025, and that after murdering him, the culprits
have beheaded the victim and laid his body and the severed head on
the railway track near the village. Hence, the petitioner lodged the
FIR. on 08.11.2005 before the Bansada P.S. under Sections
103(1)/238(a)/3(5) of the BNS against (1) Kuta Majhi, (2) Kuni Ray,
(3) Ranjan Bala (4) Arun Jena and other security staffs(not named).
SUBMISSION
3. Mr. Sarojananda Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that although the accused persons named in the FIR are
available in the village and directly and indirectly threatening the
petitioner and his family members, despite the seriousness of the
offence involving a brutal murder, police have not taken any steps to
arrest them. He contends that such inaction on the part of the police
is not bona fide and is the result influence of some politically
influential persons, who are attempting to shield the accused. This
has caused impediment in the investigation of the case.
4. Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel
for State submits that the accused namely, (1) Papan @ Tapan
Nayak, (2) Pintu @ Manas Ranjan Das, (3) Bisu @ Biswaranjan Das
have been arrested and steps taken in the investigation are
mentioned. The investigation is being conducted in accordance with
law. He further submits that there is no deliberate lapse or mala fide
intention on the part of the police, and the prayer made by the
Petitioner for interference with the investigation deserves no
consideration.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh vs State of
Haryana (2013) 12 SCC 529, has observed as follows : -
"16. The investigation into a criminal offence must
be free from any objectionable features or
infirmities which may give rise to an apprehension
in the mind of the complainant or the accused, that
investigation was not fair and may have been
carried out with some ulterior motive. The
Investigating Officer must not indulge in any kind of
mischief, or cause harassment either to the
complainant or to the accused. His conduct must be
entirely impartial and must dispel any suspicion
regarding the genuineness of the investigation. The
Investigating Officer, "is not merely present to
strengthen the case of the prosecution with evidence
that will enable the court to record a conviction, but
to bring out the real unvarnished version of the
truth." Ethical conduct on the part of the
investigating agency is absolutely essential, and
there must be no scope for any allegation of mala
fides or bias. Words like 'personal liberty'
contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India
provide for the widest amplitude, covering all kinds
of rights particularly, the right to personal liberty of
the citizens of India, and a person cannot be
deprived of the same without following the
procedure prescribed by law. In this way, the
investigating agencies are the guardians of the
liberty of innocent citizens. Therefore, a duty is cast
upon the Investigating Officer to ensure that an
innocent person should not suffer from
unnecessarily harassment of false implication,
however, at the same time, an accused person must
not be given undue leverage. An investigation
cannot be interfered with or influenced even by the
courts. Therefore, the investigating agency must
avoid entirely any kind of extraneous influence, and
investigation must be carried out with equal alacrity
and fairness irrespective of the status of the accused
or the complainant, as a tainted investigation
definitely leads to the miscarriage of criminal
justice, and thus deprives a man of his fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Thus, every investigation must be
judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to
ensure compliance with the rules of law, as is
required under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the
Constitution. (Vide: Babubhai v. State of Gujarat &
Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254).
17. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
AIR 1998 SC 1850, this Court observed, that if
primacy is given to a designed or negligent
investigation, or to the omissions or lapses created
as a result of a faulty investigation, the faith and
confidence of the people would be shaken not only
in the law enforcing agency, but also in the
administration of justice.
A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court
in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh & Ors., AIR
2003 SC 1164.
18. Furthermore, in Ram Bali v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 2329, it was held by this
Court that the court must ensure that the defective
investigation purposely carried out by the
Investigating Officer, does not affect the credibility
of the version of events given by the prosecution."
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the
materials available on the record including the FIR and the
instructions submitted by the IIC, Bansada P.S Bhadrak regarding
the steps taken during investigation. As the case involves murder of
the son of the Petitioner, and two months have elapsed since
registration of the case, I am not satisfied that the investigation is
proceeding in the manner and pace it should, but it would not be
proper to direct the manner in which the investigation should
proceed as that is the job and duty of the Police.
7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or
the culpability of any accused the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak
is directed to change the I.O. in this case and also personally
supervise the case, so that investigation is conducted in a proper
manner and the actual culprits are brought to book.
8. The I.O. should be changed within a period of ten days
from today.
9. With the aforesaid direction, the CRLMP is disposed of.
10. Since the learned State Counsels are not able to
communicate the orders of this Court to the concerned officers
promptly, the Registry is directed to email the copy of this order to
the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak forthwith, for compliance. It
is however expected that Mr. R.B. Dash, learned Additional
Standing Counsel shall also communicate the direction of this Court
to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak promptly. Copy of this
judgment be supplied to him for communication.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, the 29th January, 2026/RKS/Sukanta
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 30-Jan-2026 17:37:28
