Sangram Keshari Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sangram Keshari Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim concession: the NBW order dated 14.08.2025 shall not be given effect to and no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for six weeks, enabling him to surrender to the trial Court and explore legal remedies including pressing for grant of bail; the concession lapses after expiry of six weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the NBW (coercive process) issued by the learned trial Court on 14.08.2025, without a summons having first been issued, should be given effect to against the petitioner.

Court's answer

The order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, Gajapati in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022, whereby the NBW has been issued against the petitioner, shall not be given effect to for a period of six weeks, so that the petitioner in the meanwhile can surrender to the jurisdiction of the trial Court and explore the legal remedy including pressing for grant of bail.

Ratio / Principle

No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for six weeks, within which period he is expected to explore all the legal remedies available to him.

Key takeaways

After expiry of six weeks, the concession granted by this Court shall not be available to the petitioner.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMC No.4056 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 13.01.2026, Coram: Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra): Petitioner Sangram Keshari Behera was aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025 of the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, Gajapati in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022, whereby coercive process of NBW was issued against him. His earlier petition CRLMC No.2548 of 2023 seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 12.04.2023 had been dismissed by this Court on 03.07.2025 vide a detailed judgment (initial stay order also dated 03.07.2025); counsel submitted that the dismissal judgment is assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a pending S.L.P. with no notice yet issued, and that ABLAPL No.11024 of 2025 was earlier rejected. Senior Counsel Milan Kanungo contended the trial Court ought to have issued summon before resorting to issuance of coercive process; the Additional Government Advocate submitted the choice of process is the trial Court's prerogative. The Court disposed of the CRLMC, directing that the NBW order shall not be given effect to for six weeks and no coercive action shall be taken in the interim, so the petitioner may surrender to the trial Court and explore legal remedies including pressing for grant of bail; after expiry of six weeks the concession shall not be available to him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.4056 of 2025

…. Sangram Keshari Behera

Petitioner(s)

Mr. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Yuvraj Parekh, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and another

…. Opposite Party(s)

Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, AGA

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

02.

1. Heard.

13.01.2026

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025

passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, Gajapati in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022, whereby the learned trial Court has issued coercive process of NBW against him.

3. Earlier the petitioner had filed CRLMC No.2548 of 2023 seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned trial Court. This Court initially passed a stay order vide order dated 03.07.2025. The CRLMC was finally heard along with batch matters by this Court and the same was dismissed on 03.07.2025 vide a detailed judgment.

4. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that the order/judgment of this Court dated

Page 1 of 3

03.07.2025 dismissing the CRLMC, where the cognizance order was under challenge has been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is still pending. However, no notice has yet been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said S.L.P. He further submits that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.11024 of 2025, which was also rejected.

Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel further submits that

the learned trial Court ought to have issued summon before resorting to issuance of coercive process. He has also relied upon certain judgments to substantiate his case.

5. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that it is the prerogative of the learned trial Court to choose the process to be issued against the accused persons, particularly in the case of present nature.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the parties, I am of the view that the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, Gajapati in 1.C.C. Case No.22 of 2022, whereby the NBW has been issued against the petitioner, shall not be given effect to for a period of six weeks, so that the petitioner in the meanwhile can surrender to the jurisdiction

of the trial Court and explore the legal remedy including pressing

Page 2 of 3

for grant of bail. No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for six weeks. It is expected that the petitioner shall explore all the legal remedies available to him within the said period. After expiry of six weeks, the concession granted by this Court shall not be available to him.

7. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

Swarna

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Jan-2026 19:43:16

Page 3 of 3