Disposed¶21

Chandrasekhar Mishra@Pinku v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 May 2026TRPCRL/34/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer-of-trial request by accused deemed untenable; petition withdrawn by memo and disposed of without examining merits or maintainability. Keywords: fair trial apprehension; transfer of trial to another court; informant and her mother influencing proceedings; charge-sheet dated 07.02.2025 under BNS Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 351(3); maintainability objection, proviso to Section 447(2) BNSS 2023; Additional Sessions Judge Athagarh; withdrawal memo; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo.

What did the court decide?

In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner's grounds (apprehension regarding fair trial, and the informant and her mother allegedly attending proceedings daily and trying to influence them) were not tenable to direct transfer of the trial to any other court. ¶16

Chandrasekhar Mishra@Pinku Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's ongoing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh should be transferred to another court, given his counsel's concern regarding fair trial on the allegation that the informant and her mother attend the proceedings every day and try to influence them. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

¶16

Ratio / Principle

This Court did not go into the details of the merits of the case (including the maintainability objection under the proviso to Section 447(2) of BNSS 2023) because the petitioner filed a memo stating that he does not want to press the application at this stage and withdraws it; the memo was taken on record.

¶18

Key takeaways

Observation before parting: the petitioner need not apprehend that he will not get a fair trial, as the learned trial court is mandated under the statute and the constitution to proceed impartially to deliver justice; there cannot be any reason to think otherwise.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

TRPCRL No.34 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, order dated 01.05.2026): Chandrasekhar Mishra @ Pinku, facing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh pursuant to a charge-sheet filed on 07.02.2025 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/109(1)/351(3) of BNS, sought transfer of his trial to another court, his counsel expressing concern regarding fair trial on the ground that the informant and her mother were appearing every day and trying to influence the proceedings. The Court held both grounds not tenable to direct transfer. The Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary maintainability objection referring to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 447 of BNSS 2023, but the Court did not go into the merits as the petitioner filed a memo withdrawing the application at this stage, which was taken on record. The petition stands disposed of. Before parting, the Court observed that the petitioner need not apprehend unfair trial, the trial court being mandated under the statute and the constitution to proceed impartially.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

TRPCRL No.34 of 2026

¶3

Chandrasekhar Mishra @ …. Pinku

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Kashinath Pattanaik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha …. Opposite party

¶8

Mr. D. N. Lenka, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

ORDER

01.05.2026

Order No.

Hybrid Mode

01. 1. The application has been filed by the petitioner who is facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh. Charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judge on 07.02.2025 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/ 109(1)/351(3) of BNS.

¶15

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner expresses concerned regarding fair trial. It is submitted that the informant as well as her mother are appearing every day in the proceeding before the court and are trying to influence the proceeding.

¶16

In considered opinion of this Court, both the above grounds would not be tenable to direct transfer of the matter to be tried before any other court.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate in response raises a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the application referring to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 447 of BNSS 2023. However this Court is not going into the details of the merits of the case as the learned counsel for the petitioner files memo of date, which states thus:

¶19

“The petitioner does not want to press this application at this stage thus permitted to withdraw the same.” ( sic )

¶20

Memo is taken on record. Scanned copy be updated.

¶21

4. The petition stands disposed of.

¶22

5. Before parting with the case this Court would like to observe that the petitioner need not apprehend regarding he getting fair trial as the learned trial court is mandated under the statute and the constitution to proceed impartially to deliver justice. There cannot be any reason to think otherwise.

¶23

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

¶24

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 05-May-2026 19:00:19

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Chandrasekhar Mishra@Pinku v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekhar Mishra@Pinku 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

Alok Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Mamata Debnath@Nayak Vs Alok Nayak

Santosh Kumar Champati Vs Anima Pradhan

Priya Ranjan Swain Vs State of Odisha

Shovan Kumar Rath Vs Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Smrutirekha Sahu Vs Ashis Kumar Sahoo