Dismissed¶20

Jyoti Prakash Biswal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Feb 2026CRLREV/83/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: criminal revision; discharge rejected; framing of charge; mini trial cannot be conducted; State of Orissa vrs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568; Sections 108 and 3(5) BNS; self-immolation during agitation; video of victim retrieved from petitioner's mobile phone marked as exhibit; CCTV details and CDRs in Case Diary; co-accused Samir Kumar Sahoo and Dillip Kumar Ghosh; Dr. Surya Prakash Routray (CW-80), 20% burn injuries; Sessions Judge Balasore; S.T. Case No.238 of 2025; order dated 20.12.2025; revision dismissed 09.02.2026; observations confined to discharge, no finding on complicity.

What did the court decide?

At the time of framing of charge, a mini trial cannot be conducted; this settled position is invoked in declining to adjudicate the discharge challenge as a mini trial. ¶18

Jyoti Prakash Biswal Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision warrants interference of this Court on the Petitioner's submission that ex facie the ingredients under Section 108 of BNS are not attracted and that the framing of charge was a patent outcome of non-application of mind and a perverse exercise of jurisdiction.

¶17

Court's answer

At the time of framing of charge, a mini trial cannot be conducted; this settled position is invoked in declining to adjudicate the discharge challenge as a mini trial.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Among the materials on record taken into account is the statement that during the self-immolation the Petitioner was taking the video of the victim, which was retrieved from the mobile phone of the present Petitioner and marked as an exhibit.

¶20

Key takeaways

On perusal of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain the criminal revision, negating the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that ex facie no prima facie case is made out.ratio¶20
The observations made in the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the discharge prayer and ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner, which has to be established in the ongoing trial independently.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — CRLREV No.83 of 2026 (Jyoti Prakash Biswal v. State of Odisha), Justice V. Narasingh, order dated 09.02.2026. Criminal revision assailing the order dated 20.12.2025 of the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No.238 of 2025 rejecting the Petitioner's discharge from the offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNS — DISMISSED. Reiterating the settled position that at the time of framing of charge a mini trial cannot be conducted (relying on State of Orissa vrs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568), and noting the materials on record including that during the self-immolation of the deceased the Petitioner was taking the video of the victim, retrieved from the Petitioner's mobile phone and marked as an exhibit, the Court declined to entertain the revision notwithstanding the submission that ex facie no prima facie case under Section 108 of BNS was made out. Observations confined to the discharge prayer only; no opinion expressed on the Petitioner's complicity, which is to be established in the ongoing trial independently.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.83 of 2026

¶3

Jyoti Prakash Biswal … Petitioner Mr. P. K. Parhi, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

¶6

Mr. C. R. Swain, AGA

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

Order

09.02.2026

No.

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

¶12

Assailing the order dated 20.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No.238 of 2025 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner to discharge him from the offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNS, the present Criminal Revision has been filed.

¶13

It is the case of the Petitioner that the entire allegation is against the co-accused persons, namely, Samir Kumar Sahoo and Dillip Kumar Ghosh and even if the entire prosecution of allegations is accepted at its face value, no case under Section 108 of BNS is made out against the Petitioner.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel that it is the case of the prosecution that being aggrieved by the action and inaction of the principal accused there was an agitation and during the course of such agitation the deceased resorted to self-immolation.

¶16

It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the present Petitioner had no role in the deceased committing such self-immolation and reliance is also placed on the statement of one of the Doctors, Dr. Surya Prakash Routray, cited as CW-80 indicating that the Petitioner in the attempt to save the deceased has suffered 20% burn injuries, in fact, taking into account that the Petitioner’s condition has become serious and dying declaration was also recorded.

¶17

Referring to the same, it is submitted that since ex facie the ingredients under Section 108 of BNS are not attracted in the case at hand and framing of charge is a patent outcome of non-application of mind and outcome of perverse exercise of jurisdiction the matter warrants interference of this Court in revision.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer referring to the evidence on record, CCTV details and also the CDRs which are part of the Case Diary. 6. It is the settled position of law that at the time of framing of charge, mini trial cannot be conducted. Ref:- State of Orissa vrs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

On perusal of the materials on record and the statement that during the time of self-immolation the Petitioner was taking the video of the victim which has also been retrieved from the mobile phone of the present Petitioner and marked as an exhibit, this Court is not inclined to entertain this criminal revision negating the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that ex facie no prima facie case is made out. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision stands dismissed.

¶21

It is needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of consideration of the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge from the offence as noted above and the same ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence which has to be established in the ongoing trial in an independent manner.

¶22

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶23

Jina

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: JINA DIGAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Feb-2026 12:13:23

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Jyoti Prakash Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Prakash Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjana Singh Vs Block Development Officer Cum Election Officer, Soro Panchayat Samit, Balasore

Rasana Batu Vs State of Orissa

Bela Pujari @ Belo Pujari Vs State of Odisha

Sridhara Dehury Vs State of Odisha

Dhanwantri Sethy@Landu Vs State of Orissa

Santosh Kr. Sahoo Vs State