Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3307
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J
Kartika Lama – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLMC No.866 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Remand Order
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Judicial Discipline - Compliance with Superior Court Orders - Once an interim protection order of the High Court is brought to the notice of the trial court, the trial court must exercise due caution and defer coercive steps rather than granting police custody remand. (Para 12, 16)
Issues: Whether the trial court can grant police remand and issue a production warrant despite a subsisting interim order from the High Court directing that no coercive action be taken against the accused.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pranaya Kumar Maharaj
For the Respondents: Debasish Nayak
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the ndps case and the high court's prior 'no coercive action' order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. differing arguments on whether production warrants override interim protection orders. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. subsistence of interim protection bars police remand regardless of existing judicial custody in other cases. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. quashing of illegal remand orders violating high court directions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present CRLMC petition seeking quashing of the orders dated 07.02.2026 and 10.02.2026 passed in T.R. Case No.34 of 2021 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in connection with T.R. Case No.34 of 2021 arising out of Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.85 of 2021 registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, which is pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore.
[[IMG_1]]
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner was implicated on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused. It is further stated that pursuant to a representation submitted by the wife of the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted by the higher authorities.
4. It further appears that in CRLMC No.4802 of 2024, this Court, vide order dated 23.12.2024, directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that on 07.02.2026, learned counsel appearing on his behalf brought the aforesaid order to the notice of the learned trial court, pursuant whereto the impugned orders of remand came to be passed.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present CRLMC petition has been filed.
II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
i. The petitioner submitted that the constitutional safeguard available for the protection of a citizen has been violated in the instant case, thereby rendering the remand of the accused illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law.
ii. The petitioner submitted that the police cannot override a valid stay order passed by the High Court and, if such arrest is effected, the same may constitute contempt of court and violation of personal liberty.
iii. The petitioner submitted that the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, meaning thereby that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man, is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the observations of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1(1988) 2 SCC 602.
iv. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani and others 2(2025) 1 SCC 753., wherein it was observed that the exercise of seeking police custody remand during the currency of the interim protection granted to the petitioner was in sheer defiance of the order of the Court and tantamount to contempt on the face of the record. It was further observed that, while seeking and procuring police custody remand of the accused in the teeth of the order of the Court, the Investigating Officer was guilty of gross contempt.
v. The petitioner submitted that the case in which the stay order was passed pertains to the year 2021 and the higher authorities, after inquiry, opined that there were no materials against the accused except the confessional statement of the co-accused and, therefore, they were unable to proceed with the case. However, the accused was arrested in connection with T.R. Case No.32 of 2025 and was remanded on 10.02.2026 in connection with T.R. Case No.34 of 2021, which is illegal, not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. Hence, interference of this Court is highly warranted.
[[IMG_2]]
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
7. Per contr
