KARTIKA LAMA @ BAHADUR @ KARTIK vs STATE OF ODISHA

Court
Odisha High Court

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.866 of 2026
(In the matter of a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

Kartika Lama @ Bahadur @ Kartik …. Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha …. Opposite Party (s)


:
Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode

For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Pranaya Kumar Maharaj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA


CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI


DATE OF HEARING: -15.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -15.05.2026


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.
ACTUAL ATRIX
I. F M :
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.
Page 1

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47

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.
UBMISSIONS OF THE ETITIONER
II. S P :
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
Page 2

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
certain guide for the administration of law. In support of the said
contention, reliance was placed upon the observations of the Supreme
1
Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak .
iv. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai
2
Shah v. Kamal Dayani and others , 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.
III. S UBMISSIONS OF THE O PPOSITE P ARTY :
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party made the following
submissions in support of its contentions:

1

(1988) 2 SCC 602.
2

(2025) 1 SCC 753.
Page 3

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47

i. The impugned order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Jeypore clearly reveals that, upon perusal of the case
record, the learned court was prima facie satisfied regarding the
involvement of the petitioner in T.R. Case No.34 of 2021 under Section
20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Accordingly, production warrant under
Section 267 Cr.P.C. was issued to the Superintendent, Special Jail,
Jeypore for production of the petitioner on 10.02.2026.
ii. It was further submitted that Section 267(1) Cr.P.C. empowers the
Criminal Court to direct production of a person confined or detained in
prison for answering to a charge of an offence or for the purpose of any
proceeding against him.
iii.
It was submitted that there is no specific provision in the Cr.P.C.
dealing with a situation where a person, already detained or confined
in prison under the orders of a Court or Magistrate, is required for
investigation in another case. It was submitted that, in such
circumstances, the accused cannot be arrested without warrant since he
is already in judicial custody and confined in prison, and such person
cannot be taken out of jail without direction of the Court under whose
order he has been confined or pursuant to a production warrant issued
by a competent Court.
iv. It was submitted that when the Investigating Officer finds it necessary
to have custody of such person for proper investigation of the case, the
Investigating Officer has to make a request before the Court having
jurisdiction to issue a production warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C. so
that the accused person may be produced before the Court and
Page 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
thereafter the Court may consider the request of the police to grant
police custody or pass any other appropriate order.
v. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the law is
well settled that the limitation imposed by Section 167 Cr.P.C. does not
apply to a different occurrence in which involvement of the accused is
disclosed. Such an occurrence would constitute a different transaction
and, if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case, the
police can seek detention of the accused in police custody in another
case for the purpose of investigation of such case. Therefore, re-arrest
or second arrest in a different case is perfectly legal.
vi.
It was submitted that while the petitioner was in custody in connection
with T.R. No.32 of 2025, the Investigating Officer made a prayer before
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore, who, vide order dated
07.02.2026, directed production of the accused from jail custody in the
present T.R. No.34 of 2021. Therefore, the application of the petitioner
on the strength of the order dated 23.12.2024 passed in CRLMC
No.4802 of 2024 directing that no coercive action be taken was rightly
deemed infructuous. As such, the impugned orders dated 07.02.2026
and 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore
warrant no interference.
vii. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that on
12.02.2026, the petitioner was produced before the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Jeypore after expiry of one day police remand on
11.02.2026, on which date he was remanded to jail custody in T.R.
No.35 of 2021, which was inadvertently mentioned as T.R. No.32 of
Page 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
2025 in the reply filed by the State. However, the order dated 12.02.2026
is not under challenge in the present petition.
viii. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that, for the
aforesaid reasons, the present petition seeking quashing of the
impugned orders dated 07.02.2026 and 10.02.2026 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore is liable to be dismissed.

ix. Reliance was placed upon the observations made in CBI v. Anupam J.
3 4
Kulkarni and Susan Abraham v. State of Maharashtra and Others .
IV. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS :
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
9.
At the outset, it is apposite to note that the principal grievance of the
petitioner in the present case is that despite the interim order dated
23.12.2024 passed by this Court in CRLMC No.4802 of 2024 directing
that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in
connection with T.R. Case No.34 of 2021, the learned trial court
proceeded to pass the impugned orders dated 07.02.2026 and
10.02.2026 whereby production warrant was issued against the
petitioner and subsequently one day police remand was granted to the
Investigating Officer.
10. On perusal of the impugned order dated 07.02.2026, it transpires that
the learned trial court, upon consideration of the case record and
materials placed before it, recorded prima facie satisfaction regarding

3

(1992) 3 SCC 141.
4

2010 SCC OnLine Bom 98.
Page 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
involvement of the petitioner in the offence punishable under Section
20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and accordingly directed issuance of
production warrant for production of the petitioner from Special Jail,
Jeypore. Thereafter, by order dated 10.02.2026, upon production of the
petitioner before the learned court, the petitioner was formally
remanded in connection with the present case and police remand for
one day was allowed.
11. At this juncture, it is necessary to examine the scope of the interim
protection granted by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2024 in CRLMC
No.4802 of 2024 wherein it was directed that no coercive action shall be
taken against the petitioner in connection with the present case. The
expression “no coercive action” employed by the Court was intended
to protect the liberty of the petitioner during pendency of the
proceeding.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, once such protection had been
granted by this Court and the same continued to remain in force, the
learned trial court ought to have exercised due caution while
considering the prayer of the Investigating Officer seeking remand of
the petitioner in connection with the present case. The materials on
record reveal that the aforesaid interim order of this Court had been
brought to the notice of the learned trial court.
13. Though the petitioner was already in judicial custody in connection
with another case, namely T.R. No.32 of 2025, the fact remains that
pursuant to the impugned orders, the petitioner was formally
remanded and taken into police custody in connection with the present
Page 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
case despite the subsistence of the interim protection granted by this
Court.
14. The contention advanced on behalf of the opposite party that the
petitioner was not formally arrested but was merely produced from
judicial custody pursuant to production warrant issued under Section
267 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the present case. The impugned orders ultimately resulted in police
remand of the petitioner in connection with the present case
notwithstanding the subsisting interim protection granted by this
Court.
15.
Though reliance has been placed by the opposite party upon Anupam J.
Kulkarni (supra ) to contend that police custody in another case is
permissible even where the accused is already in judicial custody, the
said proposition is not in dispute. However, the peculiar feature of the
present case is the subsistence of the interim protection granted by this
Court directing that no coercive action shall be taken against the
petitioner in connection with the present case.
16.
This Court is also of the view that once the order dated 23.12.2024
passed by this Court was brought to the notice of the learned trial
court, the appropriate course would have been to defer further coercive
steps instead of proceeding to allow police remand in connection with
the present case.
V. CONCLUSION:
17.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 07.02.2026 and
Page 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
10.02.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Jeypore cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are
accordingly liable to be set aside.
18. Accordingly, the CRLMC petition stands allowed . The impugned
orders dated 07.02.2026 and 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore in T.R. Case No.34 of 2021
are hereby quashed.
19. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.


(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge


Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 15 May, 2026
Page 9