Chandan Naik Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Chandan Naik Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; upon the petitioner producing website copy of the order to opposite party no.5, the girl is at liberty either to stay on in the shelter or to go with the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should secure the production/release of Ms. Jangyasini Nayak, a young adult who had been illegally confined with/in opposite party no.5 (shelter) after being rescued amid a kidnapping accusation against petitioner Chandan Naik, having regard to her own wishes. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Her intention being to stay with the petitioner, the Court held that the law presumes the girl can decide for herself.

Key takeaways

The Court directed that petitioner, on producing website copy of this order to opposite party no.5, the girl will be at liberty to either stay on in the shelter or go with him.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition — WPCRL No.3 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 06.02.2025 (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sahoo). Petitioner Chandan Naik, through Adv. D.R. Parida, sought the Court's interference on the ground that Ms. Jangyasini Nayak, a young adult, was illegally confined with/in opposite party no.5 (shelter). Per the Court's earlier order dated 15th January, 2025 (paras 1 and 3 reproduced), the girl had gone missing, the petitioner stood accused of kidnapping her, and on complaint lodged and F.I.R. registered the police rescued the girl, her identity being shown to the Court from her statement in the earlier rescue case. By order dated 3rd February, 2025 the State sought a date for her Court appearance; on 06.02.2025 she was present, accompanied by police personnel in plain clothes and a counselor attached to the shelter. On interacting with her, the Court found she wanted to be with the petitioner, confirmed she had been well looked after in the shelter, and she expressed confidence the petitioner would look after her. The State (Mrs. S. Pattanayak, Additional Government Advocate) suggested she remain in the shelter till the petitioner duly married her, as she had just attained majority. Holding that the law presumes she can decide for herself, the Court directed that on the petitioner producing website copy of the order to opposite party no.5, the girl would be at liberty either to stay on in the shelter or to go with him; the writ petition was disposed of. (Signed: Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice; M.S. Sahoo, Judge.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPCRL No.3 of 2025

Chandan Naik ..... Petitioner

Repr e sented by Adv.Mr. D.R. P arida, Advocate

versus-

State of Odisha and others

.....

Opposite Parties

Re p resented by Adv.Mrs. S. Pattanayak, AGA

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

Order No. 03.

06.02.2025

Mrs. P attanayak, learned advocate, Addi t ional Government

Advocate ap p ears on behalf of State and with refe r ence to order dated 3^rd February, 2025 submits, the young adult girl i s present in Court. Police perso n nel in plain clothes and counselor a t tached to opposite party no.5 ( s helter) are also present. Mr. Parid a , learned advocate appears on b e half of petitioner, who is interested in her welfare.

Paragr a phs 1 and 3 from order dated 15^th January, 2025 are

reproduced below.

Page 1 of 3

“1. Mr . Parida, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitio n er and submits, his client is intereste d in welfare of Ms. J a ngyasini Nayak. She has been ille g ally confined with/i n opposite party no.5. He seeks interfe r ence of Court. He su b mits, there be direction to produce th e girl.

3. We have ascertained that the girl wen t missing and petitio n er was accused to have kidnap p ed her. On compl a int lodged and F.I.R. registered, poli c e rescued the girl. On behalf of petitioner her identity has b een shown to Court f rom statement made by the girl in the earlier rescue case”

Paragarph-2 f rom order dated 3^rd February, 2025 is reproduced below. “2. M rs. Pattanayak, learned advocat e , Additional Gover n ment Advocate appears on behalf of State and submit s , a date be fixed for the girl to b e present in Court.”

We ha v e interacted with the girl. She says s h e wants to be with petitioner. W e have obtained confirmation from h e r that she has been well looked after in the shelter. Mr. Parida su b mits, his client is present in C o urt. On further query the girl tells us she is confident he will look aft e r her.

Mrs. P attanayak submits, the girl be dire c ted to stay in the shelter till p e titioner duly marries her because the g irl has just attained majority and it will be in interest of her safety. Stat e had wanted her to

Page 2 of 3

be present s o that we are able to ascertain w h at she wants. Her intention is t o stay with petitioner. The law presu m es she can decide for herself. In the circumstances we direct t hat petitioner, on producing w e bsite copy of this order to opposite p arty no.5, the girl will be at lib e rty to either stay on in the shelter or g o with him. 5. The w r it petition is disposed of.

( Arindam Sinha ) Acting Chief Justice

( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge

Prasant

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 06-Feb-2025 20:09:58

Page 3 of 3