Gadadhar Garabadu vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
2026 Latest Caselaw 2097 Ori

Orissa High Court

Gadadhar Garabadu vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 9 March, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           CRLREV No.178 of 2026

       Gadadhar Garabadu                ....               Petitioner

                                        Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate

                                  -versus-

       1. State of Odisha               ....         Opposite Parties
       2. Annapurna Garabadu


                                          Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA



                         CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
                                     ORDER

09.03.2026

Order No.

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioner, who is an accused in connection with the commission of offences under Section 296/351(2) of the BNS, assails the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.- I, Bhubaneswar in C.T. No.618 of 2024, whereby the prayer of the Petitioner under Section 228 of BNSS was rejected.

For convenience of ready reference the said section is extracted hereunder:

"xxx xxx xxx

228. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused.-(1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his advocate.

(2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.

xxx xxx xxx"

It is apt to note that the same corresponds to the Section 205 of Cr.P.C., 1972.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Benjamin Roul v. Sajal Das, 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 303 that the impugned order is ex facie against the legislative intent under Section 228 of the BNSS and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. It is stated that the Petitioner is aged about 82 years and works as servitor of Lord Shree Lingaraj performing the ritualistic duties enjoined upon him. Referring to it, it is stated that his personal appearance on each date would create hindrance in his earning livelihood.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned Court in seisin rejected the prayer of the Petitioner solely on the ground that the Petitioner could avail himself of the provisions of Section 355 of BNSS.

The same is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference;

"xxx xxx xxx

355. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in absence of accused in certain cases. (1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Sanhita, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by an advocate, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused.

(2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by an advocate, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately.