Disposed

Sankar Mandal@Swadhin Mandal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Jul 2024CRLMC/2397/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a non-bailable warrant of arrest issued on his non-appearance before the trial court. The High Court found no illegality but, in the interests of justice and as the default was attributed to his counsel, set aside the order subject to payment of costs and an undertaking to appear.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.08.2013 issuing NBW set aside, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- cost to Advocates' Welfare Fund and petitioner's appearance before trial court within fifteen days.

Sankar Mandal@Swadhin Mandal Vs State of Odisha — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2397 of 2024

¶2

Sankar Mandal@swadhin Mandal ..... Petitioner

¶3

Represented By Adv.

¶4

Smruti Ranjan Rout

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State Of Odisha

¶7

..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. -

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

11.07.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Party.

¶16

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2013 on which date the NBW of arrest has been issued against him by the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in G.R. Case No.1255 of 2011.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner was on bail. He further submits that since the date of his release on bail the petitioner was appearing before the Court in seisin over the matter. However, on the date fixed for appearance before the Court in seisin over the matter, due to communication gap with his lawyer, the petitioner was unable to appear since no step was taken to represent the petitioner by the counsel appearing for him. Therefore, a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. It was further contended that for the laches on the part of the counsel, the

¶18

party should not be allowed to suffer. Therefore, being aggrieved by order dated 16.08.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court with a

¶19

Page 1 of 2.

¶20

prayer to quash the same.

¶21

On perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the trial court has not committed any illegality, however, in the larger interests of justice and in order to provide another opportunity to the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to set aside the order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in G.R. Case No.1255 of 2011, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) by the Petitioner to the Advocates' Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association within fifteen days and furnishing money receipt thereof as proof of deposit. Further, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order and shall continue to participate in the proceeding without any further default. In the event, the Petitioner makes any further default in appearance, it is open to the Court in seisin over the matter to take necessary coercive steps against the Petitioner.

¶22

The CRLMC is accordingly, disposed of.

¶23

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶24

Rubi

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 16-Jul-2024 12:48:52 Page 2 of 2.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

Sankar Mandal@Swadhin Mandal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar Mandal@Swadhin Mandal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Sabar Vs State of Odisha

Bapun Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Satyaban Ghadei Vs State of Odisha

Harish Chandra Badi Vs Gayatri Badi

Biswaranjan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Seshadeba Baral Vs State of Odisha