1. Transfer petition by accused in an acid attack case seeking transfer of trial due to alleged obstruction by local bar. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sanjay Kumar Mishra, J
Dakoju Venkat Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
TRP CRL No.45 of 2026
Important Points
The Court refused to transfer a trial based on unsupported allegations of Bar Association intimidation but ordered an in-camera trial to ensure fairness, while emphasizing the necessity of adhering to strict timelines for disposing of acid attack cases as per Supreme Court directives.
Subject
Criminal - Criminal Procedure/Transfer Petition
Act Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.309
Headnote
(A) Transfer of Criminal Proceedings - Grounds for Transfer - Allegations of intimidation and non-cooperation by local Bar Association - Where records indicate that accused are already represented by local counsel and no evidence of obstruction is found, the prayer for transfer to another district is not maintainable. (Para 3, 5)
(B) Fair Trial - In-Camera Proceedings - Sensitiveness of case - In acid attack cases where the victim is a member of the local Bar and there is an apprehension of a 'scary atmosphere' in the courtroom, directing an in-camera trial is a just course to ensure the accused can defend their case effectively. (Para 8, 9)
(C) Acid Attack Cases - Time-bound Trial - Adherence to Supreme Court directives - Trials in acid attack cases must be conducted expeditiously following specific timelines for framing charges and delivery of judgment to ensure timely justice. (Para 4, 12)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding should be transferred from Parlakhemundi to Berhampur due to alleged intimidation by the local Bar Association.
(B) Fair Trial - In-Camera Proceedings - Sensitiveness of case - In acid attack cases where the victim is a member of the local Bar and there is an apprehension of a 'scary atmosphere' in the courtroom, directing an in-camera trial is a just course to ensure the accused can defend their case effectively. (Para 8, 9)
(C) Acid Attack Cases - Time-bound Trial - Adherence to Supreme Court directives - Trials in acid attack cases must be conducted expeditiously following specific timelines for framing charges and delivery of judgment to ensure timely justice. (Para 4, 12)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding should be transferred from Parlakhemundi to Berhampur due to alleged intimidation by the local Bar Association.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: L. Samantaray, B.P. Panda
For the Respondents: M.K. Dash, A. Das
For the Appellants/Petitioners: L. Samantaray, B.P. Panda
For the Respondents: M.K. Dash, A. Das
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed obstruction and intimidation by local bar; informant and Registrar denied such allegations. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
3. Court found no evidence of obstruction, but noted sensitiveness and ordered in-camera trial to ensure fair trial. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. In sensitive cases, in-camera trial may be directed to mitigate grievance without transferring proceedings. (Para 8 )
5. Transfer petition disposed of; trial to continue with in-camera proceedings and expeditious conclusion. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 )
6. Can a criminal trial be transferred solely on allegations of obstruction by the local bar association?
No, unless supported by credible evidence; the court found no obstruction or intimidation in this case based on the Registrar's report. (Para 3 , 5 )
7. What is the appropriate remedy when an accused fears an unfair trial due to local bar presence in a sensitive case?
The court may order in-camera trial to mitigate grievance and ensure a fair trial, rather than transferring the case. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
8. What are the timelines prescribed for trial in acid attack cases under Supreme Court directives?
Framing charges within 15 days from charge sheet, trial completion within six months, and judgment as per procedural rules. (Para 12 )
9. What duties does the trial court have regarding expeditious examination of witnesses in criminal trials?
Examination must be day-to-day, no adjournment without special reasons; non-cooperation may lead to bail cancellation or appointment of amicus curiae. (Para 13 )
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 Parlakhemundi 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 Parlakhemundi 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 Parlakhemundi 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 Parlakhemundi 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 Parlakhemundi Bar Association. On the contrary, the record reveals that one of the members of Parlakhemundi 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 attention of this Court to the pleadings made in the Objection of the Opposite-Party No.2 submits that there is no such Resolution of the Bar Association not to represent the accused persons. The allegations of obstruction in the trial or intimidation or non-cooperation by the Advocates of the local Bar Association are incorrect. He further submits, as per the directives of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.1112 of 2025 ( Shaheen Malik Vs. Union of India ), acid attack cases are to be tried and disposed of in a time bound manner. If the proceeding is transferred to Berhampur, it would cause a delay in trial of S.T. Case No.41 of 2025, as other prosecution witnesses, most of whom are of the same locality, may face di
