Orissa High Court
CRLMC/2807/2026 of RANJAN SAHOO Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 19 August 2026
of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2807 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010604622026 Ranjan Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Bichitra Narayana Satapathy -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Party Represented by Adv. – B.L. Tripathy, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2807 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010604622026
Ranjan Sahoo
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Bichitra Narayana
Satapathy
-versus-
State Of Odisha
.....
Opp. Party
Represented by Adv. –
B.L. Tripathy, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
19.08.2026 Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the accused-Petitioner in C.T Case No. 96 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kujang which corresponds to Ersama PS Case No.239 dated 14.12.2020 and was registered for commission of offence under Section 436, 294, 506 of the IPC has approached this Court by filing the present application thereby challenging order dated 27.07.2026, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the
Petitioner’s application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. Further, the learned trial court has rejected the Petitioner’s prayer to recall PW Nos.7 and 8 for their further cross-examination.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that in course of trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses including PW Nos.6, 7 and 8. PW Nos.6, 7, 8 are the investigating officers who were involved in the process of investigation. Finally, the charge sheet was filed by PW No.8. He further contended that, although PW6, the initial investigating officer, was examined and cross-examined in detail, however, the Petitioner could not cross- examine PWs 7 and 8. He further submitted that, since PWs 7 and 8 are material witnesses in the trial, in the event they are not allowed to be further cross-examined by the defence, then the accused is likely to be seriously prejudiced. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the petition to recall PWs 7 and 8 be allowed and the Petitioner be provided another opportunity in the larger interest of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the prayer made in the present application at the instance of the accused-Petitioner. He further submitted that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 27.07.2026 thereby rejecting the Petitioner’s application under Section 348 of the BNSS. She further submitted that the Petitioner had specifically declined to cross-examine PWs 7 and 8, and thereafter, the PWs number 7 and 8 were discharged by the learned trial court. It was also contended that at the time of argument, again this petition has been filed with a prayer to recall such witnesses, which is nothing but an attempt to prolong the trial. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned trial court has not committed illegality.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful analysis of their submissions, further on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the application as well as the impugned order dated 27.07.2026 annexed as Annexure-3 to the application, this Court found that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 27.07.2026 whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for recall and further cross- examination of PWs 7 and 8 has been rejected. In the impugned order, the learned trial court has taken note of the fact that earlier the cross-examination was declined by the defence. Moreover, on two earlier occasions applications were filed to recall some other witnesses, which were allowed. The present application was filed at the time of final argument of the case. On such ground, the learned trial court has rejected the Petitioner’s prayer to recall PWs 7 and 8.
7. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.07.2026. However, while disposing of the present application, the Petitioner is granted liberty to move a fresh application along with a questionnaire for recall and cross-examination PW8, who is the investigating officer and who had filed the charge sheet. In the event, any such application is filed and the trial court comes to conclusion that the questionnaire contains relevant questions to be asked to the PW8, which would be for a just decision of the case and such application be considered in accordance with law before delivering the final judgment.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Aug-2026 15:53:15 Signature Not Verified