Atulya Khamari v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Jan 2026CRLMC/5680/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMC 5680/2025, Orissa High Court, 05.01.2026, A.K. Mohapatra J. — non-bailable warrant (NBW) order dated 18.07.2025 set aside despite finding of no illegality by trial court; non-appearance due to counsel's communication gap/laches; another opportunity granted subject to Rs.500 cost to Advocates' Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association and appearance within ten days; coercive steps permitted on future default; Special G.R Case No.98 of 2017, A.D.J-cum-FTSC-II Cuttack; CRLMC allowed.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 18.07.2025 issuing the non-bailable warrant set aside, subject to payment of Rs.500/- cost to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association within fifteen days with money receipt, and appearance by the Petitioner before the learned A.D.J-cum-FTSC-II, Cuttack within ten days with continued participation without default.

Atulya Khamari Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 18.07.2025 issuing a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the Petitioner ought to be quashed/set aside, where his non-appearance before the trial court is attributed to the laches of his counsel.

¶¶17

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the trial court has not committed any illegality in issuing the non-bailable warrant.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding absence of illegality, in the larger interests of justice and to give the Petitioner another opportunity, the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J-cum-FTSC-II, Cuttack in Special G.R Case No.98 of 2017 is set aside.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

The setting aside is subject to payment of a cost of Rs.500/- by the Petitioner to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of the Local Bar Association within fifteen days and furnishing money receipt thereof in proof of deposit.ratio¶¶18
The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned A.D.J-cum-FTSC-II, Cuttack within ten days with a copy of the order and to continue participating in the proceedings without further default.ratio¶¶18
If 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 him.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.), allowing CRLMC No.5680 of 2025: the Petitioner, initially on bail since 29.01.2019 in Special G.R Case No.98 of 2017, failed to appear on one date owing to a communication gap with his counsel, upon which the learned A.D.J-cum-FTSC-II, Cuttack issued a non-bailable warrant by order dated 18.07.2025. Holding that the trial court had committed no illegality, the Court nevertheless, in the larger interests of justice and to afford another opportunity, set aside the order dated 18.07.2025, subject to payment of Rs.500/- cost to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association within fifteen days with money receipt in proof of deposit, and directed the Petitioner to appear before the trial court within ten days with a copy of the order and continue to participate without default, failing which the trial court may take necessary coercive steps.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5680 of 2025

Atulya Khamari

.....

Petitioner

Represented by Adv. - Mohendra Kumar Mohapatra

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State Of Odisha

¶8

..... Opp. Party Represented by Adv. – B.K. Sahu, A.G.A.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER

¶11

05.01.2026

¶12

Order No.

¶13

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶15

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2025 on which date the non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him by the learned A.D.J-cum-FTSC-II, Cuttack in Special G.R Case No.98 of 2017. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that initially the Petitioner was on bail on 29.01.2019, after which the Petitioner was appearing before the learned Court in seisin over the matter after he was released on bail. However, on one of the dates fixed for appearance, 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

¶16

Page 1 of 2.

¶17

him. Thereafter, 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 party should not be allowed to suffer. Therefore, being aggrieved by such order the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash order dated 18.07.2025.

¶18

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 18.07.2025 by the learned A.D.J-cum-FTSC-II, Cuttack in Special G.R Case No.98 of 2017, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) by the Petitioner to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association within fifteen days and furnishing money receipt thereof in proof of deposit. Further, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the learned A.D.Jcum-FTSC-II, Cuttack within ten days from today along with a copy of today’s 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.

¶19

5. In such view of the matter, the CRLMC is allowed.

¶20

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶21

Anil

¶22

Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 2.

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Jan-2026 16:08:26

Atulya Khamari v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atulya Khamari 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

Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Suma @ Janmejay Roul Vs State of Odisha

Lokesh Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Odisha

M/S Maa Vaishno Devi Construction, Bhubaneswar Vs State of Odisha

Guru Dora Vs State of Odisha