Tapas Ranjan Das vs State Of Odisha
2026 Latest Caselaw 2627 Ori

Orissa High Court

Tapas Ranjan Das vs State Of Odisha on 19 March, 2026

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   CRLMP No. 31 of 2026
             Tapas Ranjan Das                     ....              Petitioner
                                             Ms. Saswata Patnaik, Advocate
                                         -versus-
            1. State of Odisha, represented by
               its Secretary, Home Department,
               Bhubaneswar
            2. The Director General of Police,
               Cuttack
            3. DG of Police, Crime Branch,
               Odisha, Cuttack
            4. Inspector General of Police,
               Eastern Range, Balasore
            5. The Superintendent of Police,
               Balasore
            6. The IIC, Jaleswar Police Station ....         Opposite Parties

                                                     Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty,
                                                   Additional Standing Counsel
            CORAM:
               THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                            ORDER

19.03.2026 Order No.

06. (Through hybrid mode)

1. This CRLMC has been filed with prayer for transferring the

investigation of the case to the State Crime Branch / CBI or any

independent Investigating Agency for proper and fair investigation of

the case.

2. On 27.01.2026 the following order had been passed by this

Court :-

"1. This CRLMP has been filed with a prayer for transferring the case to the State Crime Branch/CBI or any Independent Investigating Agency for proper and fair investigation of the case.

2. It appears that Jaleswar P.S. Case No. 385 of 2025 was registered on 27.08.2025 against Satyasundar Das, Sabyasachi Das, Swarna Das and Nachiket Das for commission of offences punishable under Sections 85, 103(1), 108, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in connection with the death of Monalisa Das.

3. Ms. Saswata Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the meanwhile, the local police has conducted a perfunctory investigation and submitted a charge sheet favouring the accused persons, but copy of the charge sheet is not available with the Petitioner.

4. After perusing the averments in the CRLMP, I am satisfied Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 should file a reply so notice of this application should be issued to them.

5. Issue notice on Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6. Notice on their behalf is accepted by Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

6. List this case on 10.02.2026.

7. In the meanwhile, instructions and case diary shall be obtained. Affidavit, if any on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 may be filed after serving copy on the learned counsel for the Petitioner."

3. Opposite Party No. 6 has filed an affidavit and copy of the case

diary in Jaleswar P.S. Case No. 385 of 2025. On 19.02.2026, after

perusing the case diary, it appeared to the Court that were some

deficiencies in the investigation, hence the matter had been adjourned

to 25.02.2026 and the I.O. in this case Smt. Rajalaxmi Das had been

directed to remain present in Court alongwith photographs as well as

video recordings of any part of the investigation if any, to assist the

Court in deciding the case.

4. On 25.02.2026 it was submitted by Mr. S. J. Mohanty, learned

Additional Standing Counsel that the I.O., Smt. Rajalaxmi Das, S.I. of

Police was in an advanced state of pregnancy. So the matter was

adjourned, accepting the submission of the learned State Counsel that

the IIC of Jaleswar Police Station would remain present on the next

date i.e. on 13.03.2026 to assist the Court.

5. When the case was listed on 13.03.2026, the IIC, Jaleswar Police

Station, Mr. Ashok Kumar Barik was present to assist the Court for

hearing / disposal of the case. As hearing could not be completed on

that day, the matter was adjourned to today. On 13.03.2026, this Court

had specifically directed that the order passed on that day (i.e.

13.03.2026) would not be uploaded before today i.e. 19.03.2026.

6. The relevant portion of the order passed on 13.03.2026 is

extracted below :-

" 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Barik, IIC of Jaleswar Police Station is present in Court along with the case diary.

4. In answer to a query to the Court, he informs that unless a complaint is received in respect of an unnatural death of a person whose body is received in a hospital, be it a woman or anybody, a U.D case is not required to be registered and no U.D Case was registered in connection with the death of the deceased as no complaint/information was received.

5. He further submits that after a complaint was received from the Petitioner-Tapas Ranjan Das-brother of the deceased at 5.15 pm, Jaleswar P.S. Case No.385 of 2025 was registered under Section-85/103(1)/108(3)/3(5) of the BNS and Section 4 of the DP Act and investigation started.

6. In answer to the allegation of the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly as per the endorsement on the complaint of the FIR has been registered at 5.15 pm on 27.08.2025, but as per entry in the case diary, investigation had started at 4.00 P.M., the IIC submits that he had asked the IO about this and she had stated that it was a mistake on account of typographical error.

7. Ms. S. Patnaik also submits that at 1 pm, Manas Ranjan Das-cousin of the petitioner was asked to come to the Jaleswar Police Station immediately to lodge an FIR as his sister-Monalisa Das has expired but this is not stated in the case diary. The IIC submits that as he was not the IIC at the relevant time and he has not asked the IO as to if and why

such a phone call was made to Manas Ranjan Das in absence of any information regarding death of the deceased.

8. Ms. S. Patnaik also submits that the mother-Minati Das and sister-Madhulita Pattnaik of the deceased were not examined on 27.08.2025, i.e. the day the FIR was lodged or immediately thereafter but they have been called for examination on 05.01.2026 after notice under Section 179 of the BNS was sent to them on 05.01.2026 and after filing of the preliminary charge sheet on 10.11.2025, which is only 44 days after the incident without examining these witnesses in order to help the husband of the deceased who was in custody. Without recording the statement of mother of the deceased-Minati Das and sister of the deceased-Madhulita Patnaik under Section 180 of the BNSS, filed preliminary charge sheet hastily after 44 days of the registration of the case against husband of the deceased- Sabyasachi Das with prayer to keep the investigation open. Thereafter, notice has been issued to the mother and sister of the deceased under Section 179 of the BNSS to come for recording of the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS on 09.01.2026. To this submission his reply is that their statements under Section 180 BNSS as well as statement under 183 of the BNSS have been recorded on 09.01.2026. But he has no explanation to offer as to why it was not recorded before filing of the preliminary charge sheet and why preliminary charge sheet was submitted after 44 days of registration of the FIR without examining them.

9. Mr. S. J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel

submits that despite several efforts of the IO to contact the deceased's mother and sister, they were not available. Therefore, their statements could not be recorded before filing of the preliminary charge sheet and therefore, a preliminary charge sheet was filed keeping investigation open. Notice was issued to them thereafter to come to the Police Station for purpose of recording of their statements under Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS.

10. As there is no time today, list this matter on 19.03.2026 for further hearing.

11. The IIC, Jaleswar Police Station shall remain personally present on that day to assist the Court. It shall be indicated in the list that the matter shall be taken up at 3.30 pm.

12. This order shall not be uploaded in the website before 19.03.2026."

7. Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on

instruction from Shri Ashok Kumar Barik, IIC, Jaleswar Police

Station submits that after the body of the deceased-Monalisha Das

received in the hospital on 27.08.2025, MLC was received from the

Medical Officer G.K. Bhatter, CHC, Jaleswar, at 11.30 AM in the

Police Station and Jaleswar P.S. UD Case No.20 of 2025 was

registered and ASI N.N. Mohanty was directed to take up enquiry of

the case. He produces the photostat copy of the MLC containing the

endorsement of the IIC Jaleswar Police Station, which is taken on

record. It shall be scanned and incorporated in the digital record.

8. Perusal of the endorsement on the MLC dated 27.08.2025 and on

the endorsement on the written complaint of the Petitioner dated

27.08.2025 regarding registration of the cases reveal that although the

IIC, Jaleswar Police has made endorsement on both the documents

about registration of Jaleswar P.S. UD Case No.20 of 2025 and

Jaleswar P.S. UD Case No.385 of 2025 respectively, but the

signatures differ.

9. When this Court wanted to adjourn the matter for production of

the case diary in the UD case, Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional

Standing Counsel on instruction from Sri Ashok Kumar Barik, IIC,

Jaleswar P.S. submits that there is no case diary in the UD Case, as

Jaleswar P.S. Case No.385 of 2025 has been registered on the same

day, on the information of the brother of the deceased who had

informed over telephone that he will come and submit a written

complaint.

10. But strangely there is no reference to the UD case in the case

diary of Jaleswar P.S. Case No.385 of 2025. As noted on 13.03.2026,

it had been submitted before this Court that no UD case was required

to be registered when dead body of the deceased was received in the

hospital as no complaint had been received regarding death of the

deceased.

11. The learned counsel points out the discrepancies in the dates

mentioned in the post-mortem examination report and the statements

of the doctors examined under Section 180 of the BNSS stating that

this has been done deliberately to help the accused.

12. In the CRLMP, various other deficiencies in the investigation

have been pointed out.

13. In view of the deficiencies which has come to the notice of the

Court on 13.03.20026 as well as today, I am satisfied that it is not

necessary to refer to the other deficiencies mentioned in the CRLMP

or adjourn the case for filing of the additional affidavit which Mr. S.J.

Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel had submitted that the

IIC wanted to file today as an affidavit has already been filed by him

earlier and as no affidavit can explain the lapses and deficiencies in

the investigation which have already come to the notice of the Court.

14. In my opinion, detailed discussion of the allegations against

the accused persons or materials collected so far would not be proper.

15. In view of the circumstances discussed on 13.03.2026, and

today, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to adjourn the matter for

further hearing. I am satisfied this is a fit case where in the interest of

justice , investigation in Jaleswar P.S. Case No. 385 of 2025, should

be handed over to the CID (Crime Branch) forthwith.

16. As the IIC Jaleswar Police Station is present in Court, he is

directed to hand over the records and documents of Jaleswar P.S. UD

Case No.20 of 2025 (whatever is available) as well as the case diary

and documents of Jaleswar P.S. Case No.385 of 2025 available with

him to the Officer in charge of receiving records in the Office of the

Additional Director General, Crime Branch, Odisha, Cuttack today

itself or latest by tomorrow, along with a downloaded copy of this

order which shall be uploaded in the High Court website today. The

rest of the documents shall be transmitted to the CID, Crime Branch

through proper channel within two days from today.

17. The Additional Director General, Crime Branch, Cuttack, is

directed to assign the investigation of the case to a competent officer

on or before 23.03.2026.

18. The Registry shall communicate this order to the Opposite

Parties by tomorrow (20.03.2026) for its compliance.

19. With the aforesaid directions, the CRLMP is disposed of.

20. Copy of this order shall be uploaded today.

(Savitri Ratho) Judge SignatureRKS Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 19-Mar-2026 21:46:58