CRLMC/2703/2026 of ATASHI RANJAN MAJHI @ BAPU Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026

ORDER

08.09.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., the accused-Petitioners in T.R. Case No.87 of 2026 pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khorda which corresponds to Tangi P.S. Case No.356 of 2026, has approached this Court with a prayer for to set aside impugned order dated 30.06.2026, at Annexure-6, passed by the abovenoted Court and an application filed by the Petitioners for a direction to call for the CCTV footage of the concerned police station and also call for the mobile tower location.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that although the Petitioners were detained by the police on

02.05.2026 at about 8:30PM., however they have been shown arrested in police records on 06.05.2026. In view of the aforesaid factual assertion, learned counsel for the Petitioners alleged that the Petitioners were detained in police custody illegally violating his fundamental rights. He further contended that concerned police have also violated the provisions contained in the B.N.S.S. as the Petitioners were required to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of being detained in the police custody. However, no such remand order was taken from the time of detention of the Petitioners in custody. He further contended that, in order to establish the aforesaid facts, the Petitioners moved an application before the learned trial court with a prayer to either call for or preserve the CCTV footage and also to call for the mobile tower location from the service provider of the mobile phone company. The learned trial court, by virtue of the impugned order dated 30.06.2026, partly allowed the application with a direction to the preserve the CCTV footage. However, there is no direction for production of such CCTV footage before the learned trial court as well as no such direction was given to the mobile service provider to give the tower location of the Petitioners’ mobile phone. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is unsustainable in law and that the same requires interference by this Court in exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.

5. `Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 30.06.2026, at Annexure-6. It was contended that on an application filed by the Petitioners the learned trial court, after analysing the issue and by virtue of the detailed order, has directed the concerned police station to preserve the CCTV footage.

In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court, at this stage. Accordingly, it was prayed that the application being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the allegations made by the Petitioners in their application and further on a close scrutiny of the order dated 30.06.2026, this Court observes that the learned trial court, after a thorough analysis, has passed an order directing the police authorities to preserve the CCTV footage of the concerned police station. Further, considering the nature and gravity of the allegation, that the Petitioners were detained more than 24 hours without being produced before the Magistrate, it is the duty of the learned trial court to examine such aspect and pass necessary consequential orders. In such view of the matter, while disposing of the present application, this Court directs the learned trial Court to examine the issue thoroughly and, if necessary, pass such consequential orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is open to the Petitioners to raise all such grounds before the learned trial Court, along with the judgments relied upon in support of their contentions.

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

Judge

Rubi

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:43:48 Signature Not Verified