IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.5503 of 2025

Dharabahi Nayak ..... Petitioner

Represented by Adv. -

Durga Prasad Jena

-versus-

State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Party

Represented by Adv. –

U.C. Jena, A.S.C.

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR

MOHAPATRA

ORDER

06.01.2026 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual

/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer

made therein.

3. By filing the present application under section 528 of BNSS the Petitioner-Informant seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 at Annexure-2. By virtue of the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 the learned SDJM, Jaipur, on the basis of a memo filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has declined to

examine the CSW Nos.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner being the informant of this case is a material witness in the trial. He further contended that although the

informant-petitioner was noticed, however, she could not appear before the court apprehending danger to her life. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Informant-Petitioner be provided with another opportunity for recording of her evidence and consequential arrangements be made for the safety of the informant-petitioner to appear before the learned trial court.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported order dated 06.08.2025 on the ground that ample opportunity was given to the witnesses to appear before court and for recording of their evidence. However, despite the valid service of the notice, the Petitioner did not appear. As a result, the learned trial court has declined to record the evidence of the Petitioner on the basis of a memo filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor. He further submitted that the order dated 06.08.2025 is a detailed order and that the same does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. On such ground learned counsel for the State submitted that the application filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed.

6. Having heard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, further on a close scrutiny of the order dated 06.08.2025 at Annexure-2 passed by the learned SDJM, Jaipur, this Court is of the prima facie view that ample opportunity was provided to the Petitioner-informant to appear before the court and for recording of her evidence. However, for reasons best known to the informant, she did not appear before the learned trial court. Although it is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the informant-petitioner apprehends danger to her life in the event she is asked to appear before the learned Magistrate. It was also contended that either necessary protection be provided to the Petitioner or she may be permitted to appear through virtual mode.

7. On a careful analysis of the surrounding facts and circumstances, this Court is although of the view that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 06.08.2025, however, for the sake of a fair trial, this Court is inclined to provide another opportunity to the Petitioner-informant for recording of her evidence in the present case. Accordingly, order dated 06.08.2025 is hereby set aside subject to the Informant- Petitioner paying a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association. Further, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner prays for her protection or makes an application for her examination through virtual mode, the same shall be considered by the learned trial court in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

Judge Anil Signature No t V e r i f i