p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 259 of 2026 Akshay Seth …. Petitioner Ms. Pragnya Panda, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Director General of Police, Cuttack 3. Director General of Police, Crime Branch, Cuttack 4. The Superintendent of Police, Angul 5. The Inspector-in-Charge, Angul Sadar Police Station, Angul …. Opposite Parties Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 29.04.2026 05. (Through hybrid mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed praying for a direction to transfer the investigation in Angul Sadar PS UD Case No.14 of 2025 to the Crime Branch, SIT or CBI and direct the investigating agency to conduct a fair, impartial and time bound investigation. 2. A detailed status report dated 12.03.2026 has been submitted by the IIC, Angul Sadar Police Station. 3. An affidavit dated 24.03.2026 had also been filed by the I.O. annexing a copy of the reports the SFSL (Annexure A/5 series), post mortem report (Annexure-B/5) and final medical opinion dated p. 2 16.03.2026 (Annexure C/5). In their opinion, the doctors have opined that manner of death is suggestive of accidental drowning. 4. In response to such affidavit, Ms. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner had informed that some witnesses who had seen the occurrence had not been examined by the I.O. Hence, by order dated 15.04.2026 the Petitioner had been permitted to produce these witnesses before the I.O. 5. Ms. P. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 15.04.2026, the Petitioner submitted the names of some witnesses to the I.O. 6. Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel produces the up-to-date case diary (CD-XVI to XXI). 7. Perusal of the same reveals that it is stated therein that on 21.04.2026 that the Petitioner had intimated the names of Krupasindhu Parida, Dinabandhu Parida and Kuna Dalabehera, who had direct knowledge about relevant facts of the case and the informant alleged that in the presence of these persons, Trinath Behera had made an extra judicial confession and disclosed that his son Amit Behera and his nephew was involved in commission of the crime which resulted in the death of Jasmin Seth and Trinath Behera requested the informant as well as other witnesses not to disclose p. 3 this information before any person. So, the I.O. has called Krupasindhu Parida, Dinabandhu Parida and Kuna Dalabehera to the Police Station for the purpose of enquiry and examined them. He has also examined one Kedarnath Khatua and the statements of these witnesses have been videographed and their statements kept in a DVD. But these witnesses did not state anything regarding their knowledge about the occurrence nor did they disclose any incriminating materials or provide any specific information to establish the cause or the manner of death of the deceased and the statements of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. Thereafter on 25.04.2026, the I.O. had gone to the village Shyamsundarpur looking for chance witnesses but in spite of efforts nobody volunteered to come forward for examination. 8. Although it is the allegation of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the investigation in the case has not been conducted properly, after going through the case diary, instructions and the affidavit and its annexures, I am satisfied that efforts have been made so far for proper investigation in the case. Hence in my opinion, no direction is required to be issued at present for transfer of the investigation to an independent investigating agency such as Crime Branch or SIT or the CBI. Page 4 of 4 9. The CRLMP is disposed of directing the I.O. to take steps for expeditious completion of the investigation in Angul Sadar P.S. UD Case No.14 of 2025. 10. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to challenge the result of the investigation if he is aggrieved by the same. 11. Copy of the case diary be returned to the learned State Counsel. (Savitri Ratho) Judge RKS