Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2340 of 2026 Manas Pradhan @ Manas Ranjan Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Panchanan Panigrahi -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Party Represented by Adv. – S.Nayak, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 27.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Party. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present CRLMC application under Section 528 of the BNSS, the accused-Petitioner has approached this Court thereby challenging the order dated 06.08.2019 passed in G.R Case No.334 of 2012 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Parjang. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner, who has been arrayed as an accused in the abovenoted case, was initially released on bail on 05.03.2014. Thereafter, the Petitioner was being represented by his lawyer. However, on 06.08.2019, due to a communication gap, no steps Page 2 of 3. were taken by the conducting counsel. As a result, learned trial court has issued an NBW against the present Petitioner. 5. While explaining the aforesaid conduct of the learned trial court in issuing NBW as well as the delay, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that initially the case was being tried by the learned SDJM, Kamakshyanagar. However, in the meantime the case has been transferred to the court of learned JMFC, Parjang. Such fact was not within the knowledge of the present Petitioner. He further contended that during the pendency of the trial, the Petitioner has moved out, as such, his address has changed. Therefore, it is alleged that no proper summons has been given to the Petitioner with regard to the change of the court. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the prayer made in the present application. He further contended that the conducting counsel for the Petitioner must be aware of the change in court. He further submitted that considering the fact that there is a delay of about 7 years, this Court should not entertain this application and, that the application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the fact that during pendency of the trial, the trial was transferred to a different court, this Court is inclined to grant another opportunity to the Petitioner to appear before the learned trial court and to cooperate with the learned trial court for an early conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, order dated 06.08.2019 is hereby set aside subject to payment of a cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) by the Petitioner Page 3 of 3. to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association within fifteen days and furnishing money receipt thereof in proof of deposit. Further, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the learned JMFC, Parjang within two weeks from today along with a copy of today’s order and shall continue to participate in the proceeding without any further default. In the event the Petitioner makes any further default in appearance, it is open to the Court in seisin over the matter to take necessary coercive steps against the Petitioner. 8. Considering the fact that the case is of the year 2012, learned trial court shall do well to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. 9. In such view of the matter, the CRLMC is allowed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer