Pradeep Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

This Court by order dated 8^th July, 2026 directed personal appearance of Mr. Biswa Ranjan Das, ASO of the office of the Advocate General, Odisha in view of the report of the IIC, Bansada P.S., Bhadrak at Flag-B claiming that the affidavit at Flag-A was filed on 1^st July, 2026 but the date has been tampered with.

¶16

Recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the State. Perused the affidavit at Flag-A. This Court finds that it carries a date i.e. 2^nd July, 2026 contrary to the claim of the IIC, concerned referring to a copy of the receipt uploaded online. Learned AGA for the State would submit that the affidavit was filed on 2^nd July, 2026. Mr. Das, ASO of the office of the learned AG, Odisha is present in Court and pleads innocence. It

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

is submitted by learned AGA that the ASO is not responsible for any such change in the date of the affidavit. Considering the above facts and submission of learned ASC for the State, this Court accepting the explanation offered by Mr. Das, ASO is not inclined to proceed with any further enquiry as the same is not necessary and accordingly, the proceeding is closed.

¶19

Instant CRLMP is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party Nos.1 to 3 to handover the investigation relating to Bansada P.S. Case No. 325 of 2025 to the Crime Branch, Odisha or any other Agency other than the P.S. concerned on the grounds stated.

¶20

Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the F.I.R. is lodged as per Annexure-1. The submission is that initially, a U.D. case was registered and with much difficulty, the F.I.R. was accepted by the concerned P.S. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel submits that a case under Section 103(1) BNS is registered though the investigation is not satisfactory. The further submission is that this Court by order dated 6^th July, 2026 directed the IIC of the P.S. concerned to file an affidavit. Referring to the affidavit dated 23^rd June, 2026 as at Flag-A by the concerned IIC, Mr. Pujari, learned counsel submits that the written report lodged by the brother of the petitioner as at Annexure-A/3 is a manufactured one. The contention of Mr. Pujari, learned counsel is that the petitioner’s brother, namely, Pramod Kumar Nayak is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased. Despite the F.I.R. lodged, as further contended, proper investigation has not taken place.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

Alleging a homicidal death of the deceased, namely, father of the petitioner, Mr. Pujari, learned counsel refers to the postmortem report as at Annexure F/3 to the affidavit at Flag-A. Referring to the statements of a witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 180 BNSS as at Annexure-K/3 to the said affidavit, it is further claimed that the brother of the petitioner is actually responsible for the death of the deceased and the same is homicidal, hence, therefore, necessary direction is required to the I.O. concerned to conduct the investigation to find out the real truth. In reply to the affidavit (supra), the petitioner has filed an objection, a copy of which is produced in Court today (not in record) and referring to the same, Mr. Pujari, learned counsel submits that the witnesses who are material witnesses and named therein are required to be examined by the I.O. With submissions as above, it is claimed that a direction is absolutely necessary for a fair and proper investigation conducted into the death of the deceased father of the petitioner.

¶23

Recorded the response of learned counsel for the State. It is submitted to the Court that pursuant to the Court’s order dated 6^th July, 2026, a detailed reply in shape of an affidavit is filed by the IIC of the P.S. concerned and at present the investigation is in progress.

¶24

From the affidavit at Flag-A, this Court finds that inquest has been held over the body of the deceased. Besides the inquest, the post-mortem was conducted and the cause of death and opinion thereon is kept reserved. The post-mortem

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

report reveals that the some of the injuries received by the deceased stated to be ante mortem in nature. Even a polygraph test has been conducted as made to reveal from Annexure-H/3. Besides that, the affidavit of the IIC of the P.S. concerned included a viscera test report but the finding thereon is yet to arrive as further revealed therein. The witnesses have also been examined during investigation with their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS as at Annexure-K/3 thereto. From the above, it appears that the investigation is underway but apprehension is expressed by the petitioner alleging the death of the deceased to be homicidal and complicity of his brother above named.

¶27

Considering the manner in which the investigation has been conducted, this Court is of the view that there is no need for any such direction to hand over the same to the Crime Branch or to any other Agency. But for the submission of Mr. Pujari, learned counsel of the petitioner to the effect that the investigation by the present I.O. is unsatisfactory and in view of an impression of the petitioner regarding unsatisfactory investigation by the concerned I.O., the Court is of the view the same is required to be looked into by the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak, namely, opposite party No.3. At the same time, considering the reply and response of the petitioner to the affidavit at Flag-A, a direction is necessary to opposite party No.4 to assign the investigation if really necessary by the order of opposite No.3 and also to examine the witnesses named therein, who according to the petitioner, would divulge material information as to the circumstances leading to the death of the

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

deceased. Such is the view of the Court only in order to ensure fair and proper investigation to ascertain the real reason behind the death of the deceased, who according to the petitioner said to have had a homicidal death.

¶30

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶31

In the result, the CRLMP stands disposed of. Consequently, it is directed that the witnesses identified by the petitioner in the objection to the affidavit at Flag-A shall be examined by the I.O. and record their statements under Section 180 BNSS for the purpose of investigation and to proceed with such investigation in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.

¶32