##PAGE1##

TRPCRL/45/2026 ODHC010360422026

2026:OHC:124 THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK TRPCRL No.45 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010360422026 Dakoju Venkat Rao & another ....... Petitioners -Versus-

State of Odisha & another ....... Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. B.P. Panda, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. M.K. Dash, ASC, (For O.P. No.1)

Mr. A. Das, Advocate (For O.P. No.2)

----------------------------

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 11.09.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. This transfer petition has been preferred by the Petitioners, who are the accused persons in S.T. Case No.41 of 2025, with a prayer to transfer the proceeding from the Court of learned Session Judge, Gajapati at Parlakhemundi to the Court of learned Session Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam, basically on the grounds of alleged obstruction in the trial, intimidation and non-cooperation by the Advocates of the Parlakhemundi Bar Association.

2. Opposing to such prayer, an Objection has been filed by the Informant (Opposite Party No.2), who was the then Secretary of Parlakhemundi Bar Association. That apart, Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State produces the written instruction received from the Registrar, Civil Courts, Gajapati at Parlakhemundi imparted vide Letter No.7696 dated 01.09.2026, wherefrom it revealed that, out of twenty-five prosecution witnesses, six witnesses have already been examined and further proceeding have been delayed due to non-appearance of other prosecution witnesses.

3. So far as the grounds urged in the transfer petition, to justify the prayer for transfer, relevant paragraphs from the response of the learned Registrar, Civil Courts, Gajapati, opposing to such grounds, are reproduced below:

“Regarding the engagement of advocate by the petitioners, the case record reveals that on 05.06.2025, Advocate A.K. Parida of Paralakhemundi Bar Association has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner-D.Venkat Rao and as other petitioner-D.Satish expressed his poor financial condition to engage a lawyer, Advocate S.K.Pal of Paralakhemundi Bar Association was engaged as State Defence Counsel (SDC) for the accused who continued to represent the accused. On 06.01.2026, one Advocate Sri A.V. Suryanarayan from Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) filed vakalatnama on behalf of accused-D.Satish and continuing since then. Similarly, on 15.04.2026, Advocate S.Ram Kumar along with Sri A.K.Parida, a member of Paralakhemundi Bar Association, filed joint vakalatnama on behalf of accused-D.Venkat Rao but Sri A.K.Parida is conducting the case on behalf of the accused-D.Venkat Rao on each date. It is pertinent to mention here that Visakhapatnam is nearer to Paralakhemundi than Berhampur. So, the contention that engagement of lawyer from Visakhapatnam will cause financial stringency to the petitioners is baseless.”

“ In response to Para-9 of the petition, this office has no information regarding resolution passed by the Paralakhemundi Bar Association. On the contrary, the record reveals that one of the members of Paralakhemundi Bar Association is representing the petitioner-D. Venkat Rao since 05.06.2025.

In response to Para-10 of the petition, this office has not come across of such obstruction in the trial or intimidation or non-cooperation by the advocates of the local Bar Association. No petition or intimation has been given to this Court in this regard by the petitioners. The proceeding is going on in the Court room smoothly without any external pressure or influence. It is inappropriate to allege that this court is biased or will be influenced by the local Bar members causing prejudice to the petitioners”

(Emphasis supplied)

4. That apart, learned Counsel for the Informant (Opposite Party No.2), drawing the at