Disposed¶26

Srikanta Dhal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Apr 2026CRLREV/239/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle release during trial; cash security deposit Rs.1,50,000; vehicle IDV Rs.13,89,455; vehicle re-involved in offence after earlier conditional release; JMFC Soro; Misc. Case no. 108 of 2026; C.T. Case no 401 of 2026; Sunderbhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 invoked by defence counsel; CRLREV No.239 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice V. Narasingh; order dated 15.04.2026; interest-bearing deposit abiding trial outcome.

What did the court decide?

Release of the vehicle in question upon the Petitioner depositing Rs.1,50,000/- as cash security, the deposit to be kept in an interest-bearing account and abide by the final outcome of the trial, with other conditions to be stipulated by the learned Trial Court. ¶26

Srikanta Dhal Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision seeking release of the Petitioner's vehicle should be allowed, given that the vehicle, though earlier released to the Petitioner, was again found involved in the present offence. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Interest of justice would be sub-served if the Petitioner is directed to deposit an amount towards cash security, acting as a deterrent, while directing release of the vehicle.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- would be just; on such deposit, the amount shall be kept in an interest-bearing account and shall abide by the final outcome of the trial.

¶23

Key takeaways

The vehicle in question shall be released on deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-, with other conditions to be stipulated by the learned Trial Court.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLREV No.239 of 2026 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, V. Narasingh J., order dated 15.04.2026): Srikanta Dhal v. State of Odisha. Criminal revision assailing the order dated 16.03.2026 of learned JMFC, Soro in Misc. Case no. 108 of 2026 arising out of C.T. Case no 401 of 2026, which rejected the Petitioner's prayer for release of his vehicle; the vehicle, though earlier released in favour of the Petitioner, had again been found involved in the present offence, which weighed with the Trial Court. Petitioner's counsel submitted the Trial Court's order was against the spirit of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, and that detention would deplete the vehicle's value. Considering rival submissions, the Court held interest of justice would be sub-served by directing release of the vehicle upon deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- as cash security acting as a deterrent (total IDV of the vehicle being Rs.13,89,455/- per insurance records), the deposit to be kept in an interest-bearing account and abide by the final outcome of the trial, other conditions left to the learned Trial Court. Criminal revision stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.239 of 2026

¶3

Srikanta Dhal

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

15.04.2026

Order No.

02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶15

Assailing the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by learned JMFC, Soro in in Misc. Case no. 108 of 2026 arising out of C.T. Case no 401 of 2026, rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for release of the vehicle in question, the present revision has been preferred.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the factor which weighed with the learned Court is that the vehicle in question was involved in commission of the present offence notwithstanding that the same was released in favour of the Petitioner by virtue of an earlier passed and as such further involvement of the vehicle in the case at hand amounts to

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

violation of the conditions so imposed while the vehicle was released.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Zafarulla, submits that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is against the spirit of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Sunderbhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 .

¶20

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that detaining the vehicle would only result in its value getting depleted being exposed to vagaries of nature.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that releasing the vehicle in the present factual scenario would amount to paying a premium to the violation of the earlier orders passed by this Court.

¶22

On considering the rival submissions, this Court is persuaded to hold that interest of justice would be sub served if the Petitioner is directed to deposit an amount towards cash security which would act as a deterrent while directing release of the vehicle.

¶23

From the documents of the insurance on record, it is seen that the total IDV of the vehicle is Rs.13,89,455/-. 9. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is persuaded to hold that directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- would be just. On Petitioner depositing the said amount it shall be kept in an interestbearing account and shall abide by the final outcome of the trial.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

The vehicle in question shall be released on deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- as above. And, other conditions to be stipulated by the learned Trial Court.

¶26