p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.797 of 2026 (CNR No. ODHC010464382026) Ashok Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. S. Mohanty (1), Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Panda, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 02.09.2026 05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant CRLMP is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party Nos.3 & 4, in particular, to conduct a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation into Sheragada P.S. Case No.81 dated 11th March, 2026 with such other reliefs sought for on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 14th July, 2026, an additional affidavit is filed by opposite party No.4 but there has been no prompt action in apprehending the other accused persons besides the accused, namely, Udayanath Pradhan, who is in judicial custody. The further submission is that the accused, namely, Kalia @ Niranjan Jena and two others are directly involved in the alleged incident during which the petitioner’s father, who is the sitting Chairman of Sheragada Block was brutally assaulted by them but they are still at large. The claim is that the assault was made in the Office of the said Block. The further claim is that the father of the petitioner is p. 2 receiving constant threat from the accused persons even now, but he is without any protection, hence, the same is sought for. The submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel is that the explanation offered by opposite party No.4 in the additional affidavit dated 10th August, 2026 is not satisfactory for the reason that there has been no arrest of the accused, namely, Mukesh Sahu, who never surrendered before the learned court below seeking regular bail pursuant to order in ABLAPL No.6169 of 2026 with a memo filed today revealing the names of the accused persons, who are not yet arrested by opposite party No.4 and taken on record. The submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel is that a direction is necessary to accomplish the arrest and to provide protection to the petitioner’s father for the threat, he has been receiving till date. 4. Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, submits that the investigation is underway. In fact, it is informed to the Court that a preliminary chargesheet is filed in the meantime and further investigation is in progress. It is submitted that one of the accused persons is in custody and others have not been arrested. It is further submitted that accused, namely, Mukesh Sahu had approached this Court in the ABLAPL (supra) disposed of on 15th July, 2026. It is admitted that the said accused has not been arrested yet. It is also admitted that in the additional affidavit of opposite party No.4 that there is no reference about the accused, namely, Kalia @ Niranjan Jena as to why he has not been arrested. The submission is that this Court is not to direct the arrest of the accused persons while exercising writ jurisdiction as it should be left to the discretion of the I.O concerned. Apart from the p. 3 submissions as above, an assurance is received from Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State that the further investigation would be concluded with the other accused persons named being brought to justice. 5. On a reading of the affidavits filed and on record as at Flags-15 and 20, it is made to understand that some of the accused persons are still to be arrested by opposite party No.4, who tendered unconditional apology in submitting an earlier instruction which is factually incorrect claiming that he had no mala fide intention. But with regard to action against other accused persons, particularly, the named accused in the memo filed today by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, there has been no indication in the affidavits as to what prevailed upon him not to take steps and measures to ensure their arrest. Of course, this Court is not to direct a particular accused to be arrested but when there is sufficient material to show complicity of any one, it is the duty and responsibility of the I.O. of the case to ensure that they are taken to task and brought to justice without delay. The FIR is of the month of March, 2026 and till date, as it appears, considering the additional affidavit of opposite party No.4, the main accused persons have not been arrested and particularly accused, namely, Kalia @ Niranjan Jena. This Court expresses serious concern for the delay in taking action against the accused persons named in the memo. Though there has been a preliminary chargesheet in the meantime and it is stated that the further investigation is underway, this Court, recording the submissions of learned counsels for both the sides and taking into account the affidavits on record, is of the view that a p. 4 direction is necessary to opposite party No.4 to ensure closure of the investigation and taking measures to ensure action against accused, namely, Kalia @ Niranjan Jena and others named in the memo dated 2nd September, 2026 filed by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and at the same time, to direct opposite party No.4 to look into the allegations of threat being received by the petitioner’s father and if necessary, to provide necessary protection against such threats to him without further delay. 6. The unconditional apology of opposite party No.4 is accepted, however, with an observation that he should be more careful in future. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the CRLMP stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid for compliance by opposite party No.4 upon receiving a copy of this order. It is further directed that opposite party No.4 shall ensure such compliance with necessary steps taken to bring the accused persons to justice with actions as contemplated under law. The further direction is that the allegation about the threats being received by the petitioner’s father shall be looked into by opposite party No.4 and if necessary, to provide necessary protection to him. 9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. 10. A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State for onward intimation to opposite party No.4 and early compliance. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok