Disposed¶14

Ajay Kumar Nanda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Feb 2026CRLREV/104/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC (Cuttack), CRLREV No.104/2026, Justice V. Narasingh, order dated 17.02.2026. Petitioner Ajay Kumar Nanda vs State of Odisha & another. Challenges cognizance order of 04.08.2025 by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.277/2025 under Sections 75/296/78(2)/351(2) BNS r/w Sec.67(B) I.T. Act and Sections 8/12 POCSO Act. Court, after perusing victim's statement, found no infirmity incl. under POCSO Sec.12; revision disposed of; no opinion expressed on petitioner's complicity; victim's statement to be kept in sealed cover.

What did the court decide?

Having perused the statement of the victim (taken on record), this Court does not find any infirmity in the order taking cognizance, inter alia under Section 12 of POCSO; accordingly the Criminal Revision is disposed of. ¶12

Ajay Kumar Nanda Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in T. R. Case No.277 of 2025, taking cognizance under Sections 75/296/78(2)/351(2) BNS r/w Sec.67(B) of I.T. Act and Sections 8/12 of POCSO Act, contains any infirmity warranting interference through the present Criminal Revision.

¶10

Court's answer

¶12

Key takeaways

Non-entertainment of the revision ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.obiter¶15
The statement of the victim shall be placed in sealed cover and no copy shall be issued without the specific order of this Court.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision CRLREV No.104 of 2026 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; single-member coram, Justice V. Narasingh; order dated 17.02.2026): Ajay Kumar Nanda (petitioner, represented by M. K. Mohanty (2)) assailed the cognizance order dated 04.08.2025 of the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in T. R. Case No.277 of 2025, whereby cognizance was taken under Sections 75/296/78(2)/351(2) BNS r/w Sec.67(B) of the I.T. Act and Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act; opposite parties: State of Odisha and another (represented by M. R. Mohanty, AGA). Having perused and taken on record the victim's statement furnished by the petitioner's counsel, the Court found no infirmity in the order taking cognizance, expressly including under Section 12 of POCSO, and disposed of the revision. The Court cautioned that non-entertainment of the revision ought not be construed as expressing any opinion on the petitioner's complicity in the alleged offence, and directed that the victim's statement be placed in sealed cover with no copy to be issued absent a specific order of the Court.

Ajay Kumar Nanda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Nanda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puspanjali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Priyanka Singh Vs State of Odisha

Sunita Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Dabula @ Debendra Vs State

Nakula Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Balaram Sahoo Vs Purna Ch.Sahoo