Disposed¶23

Pravakar Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Jul 2025WPCRL/72/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court Cuttack; WPCRL No.72 of 2025; writ petition criminal; habeas corpus; custody of major son; rehabilitation centre; Sweekar Foundation Nisha Mukti Kendra; opposite party No.4; unauthorised and illegal custody; personal liberty; integration with family; Balianta Police Station; 42 Mouza Police Station; Anil Kumar Parida IIC; Girish Chandra Maharana IIC; Renubala Mishra Manager; recurring expenditures; disposed; Harish Tandon Chief Justice; Murahari Sri Raman; order dated 08.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Custody/release effected: the petitioner's major son was produced in Court by the Manager of the Rehabilitation Centre and allowed to go with his father (the petitioner) from the Court itself, with no further grievance permitted between the parties; the Writ Petition (Criminal) was disposed of. ¶23

Pravakar Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's son, admitted by him in the Rehabilitation Centre (Sweekar Foundation Nisha Mukti Kendra, opposite party No.4), was being kept in unauthorised/illegal custody, and whether the boy should be released and integrated into his family (writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus). +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The Court allowed the petitioner's major son, whose treatment at the Rehabilitation Centre was stated to be complete, to go along with his father (the petitioner) from the Court itself, and directed that there shall be no further grievance of the respective parties in this regard.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Court found that the latent intention behind the writ petition was to avoid payment of the recurring expenditures the petitioner was required to pay to the Rehabilitation Centre where his son was admitted by him, i.e., to settle personal scores; however, the Court expressly declined to delve into the allegations and counter-allegations.obiter¶17
The Court stated the general principle that nobody is permitted to keep the custody of a person unauthorisedly and illegally, while noting it did not believe the petitioner's claim of being a daily rated labourer without means; it nonetheless did not adjudicate the legality of the detention, choosing integration of the boy with his family instead.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas corpus writ petition (Criminal) — WPCRL No.72 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Harish Tandon, CJ and Murahari Sri Raman; order dated 08.07.2025). A father sought custody of his major son admitted by him in a rehabilitation centre (Sweekar Foundation Nisha Mukti Kendra, opposite party No.4). The Court observed that the petition's latent intention appeared to be settling personal scores and avoiding recurring expenditure payable to the Centre, but noted that nobody is permitted to keep a person in unauthorised or illegal custody. Pursuant to an earlier order dated 01.07.2025, the IICs of Balianta and 42 Mouza Police Stations and the Centre's Manager were personally present; the Manager stated treatment was complete, brought the son to Court, and sought his handover to the father. The Bench allowed the boy to go with his father from the Court itself, directed that there be no further grievance between the parties, and disposed of the petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPCRL No.72 of 2025

¶2

Pravakar Behera

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Satrughna Dash, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr.Debasish Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶11

AND

¶12

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 08.07.2025

¶13

Order No.

¶14

02.

¶15

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

2. Pursuant to the earlier order dated 01.07.2025, Mr.Anil Kumar Parida, the IIC, Balianta Police Station, Mr.Girish Chandra Maharana, IIC, 42 Mouza Police Station and Ms.Renubala Mishra, the Manager of Sweekar Foundation Nisha Mukti Kendra (opposite party No.4) are personally present in Court today.

¶17

3. There is no hesitation in our mind that the instant writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus is to settle the personal scores. The latent intention is to avoid the payment of his recurring expenditures which the petitioner is required to pay to the Rehabilitation Centre where his son was admitted by him. The allegations run into several pages are primarily aimed on such latent intention.

¶18

4. Be that as it may, the Manager of the Rehabilitation Centre who is personally present, fairly took a stand that despite several attempts having made to handover the child to the petitioner, there was reluctance on his part and the Rehabilitation Centre does not

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

insist for any further payment to be made, provided the custody of the child is immediately taken by the petitioner.

¶21

5. We do not believe the gospel story made out in the writ petition that the petitioner being a daily rated labourer having no means to pay. Yet, we cannot overlook the vital fact that nobody is permitted to keep the custody of a person unauthorisedly and illegally.

¶22

6. Without delving into the allegations and the counter allegations made by the respective parties, we feel that justice would be sub-served if the boy is integrated to his family. The Manager of the Rehabilitation Centre has brought the son of the petitioner in Court and fervently submits that the boy may be given to his father, i.e., the petitioner herein. According to the Manager of the Rehabilitation Centre, the treatment of the son of the petitioner is complete in all respect and she has a profound hope that he would not indulge in such activities in his life. The boy is major, personally present in Court today. He is allowed to go along with his father, i.e., the petitioner herein from the Court itself. There shall not be any further grievance of the respective parties in this regard.

¶23

7. The Writ Petition (Criminal) is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Bichi Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 14-Jul-2025 16:47:52

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Pravakar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravakar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritirekha Rout Vs State of Odisha

Saidun Bibi Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Khilar Vs State of Odisha

Manas Ranjan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Commissioner Cum Secy, Revenue and Disaster Management Deptt Vs Bijaya Kumar Mohapatra

Sunita Sahoo Vs State of Odisha