01Facts
The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in T.R. Case No. 34 of 2021 for offenses under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
p. 1, para 2Initially, the High Court had granted interim protection in CRLMC No. 4802 of 2024, directing that "no coercive action" be taken against the petitioner.
p. 2, para 4While the petitioner was in judicial custody regarding a separate matter (T.R. Case No. 32 of 2025), the Trial Court issued a production warrant under Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. for the present case on 07.02.2026.
p. 4, para 7(i)On 10.02.2026, despite being notified of the High Court’s stay order, the Trial Court formally remanded the petitioner and granted one-day police custody to the Investigating Officer.
p. 2, para 4 · p. 7, para 10The petitioner challenged these remand orders as a violation of the High Court's interim protection.
02Issues
i.1. Whether a Trial Court can grant police remand or take coercive steps against an accused when a superior court has passed an interim order of "no coercive action" in that specific case.
p. 6, para 9ii.2. Whether the production of an accused from judicial custody in a separate case via a production warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C. overrides a subsisting interim stay on coercive action.
p. 8, para 1403Law Applied
The Court applied the principle of personal liberty and the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man), as discussed in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak.
p. 3, para 6(iii)It relied on Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani, which established that seeking police remand during the currency of interim protection is a "sheer defiance" of court orders and constitutes contempt.
p. 3, para 6(iv)Regarding criminal procedure, the Court examined Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. concerning production warrants and Section 167 regarding remand, concluding that while police custody is generally permissible for different transactions as per CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, such powers are limited by specific stay orders from superior courts.
pp. 4-5 · p. 8, para 15The case was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
p. 1Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 267Section 167
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the expression "no coercive action" is specifically intended to safeguard the liberty of the petitioner during the pendency of proceedings.
p. 7, para 11Although the State argued that the petitioner was already in custody for another case and thus the protection was "infructuous", the Court held that the formal remand and grant of police custody in this specific case constituted a fresh coercive act.
p. 5, para 7(vi) · p. 7, para 13The Court found that once the interim order was brought to the Trial Court's notice, the lower court was under a legal obligation to exercise caution and defer coercive steps.
p. 7, para 12 · p. 8, para 16The Court rejected the State’s reliance on Anupam J. Kulkarni, noting that while second arrests in different cases are generally legal, they cannot be sustained when they stand in direct conflict with a specific, subsisting protection order granted by the High Court.
p. 8, para 1505Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative for the petitioner, holding that the Trial Court's orders were unsustainable in law as they defied a valid interim stay.
p. 9, para 17The High Court quashed the impugned orders dated 07.02.2026 and 10.02.2026 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore. The CRLMC petition was allowed, and all earlier interim orders were vacated.
pp. 9, para 18-19Original Court PDF
KARTIKA LAMA @ BAHADUR @ KARTIKvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
