ACCUSED HUSBAND AMIT KUMAR SAHU, B.P.NANDA vs STATE OF ODISHA — BLAPL/451/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010003312026

Filing Number

BLAPL/133/2026

Filing Date

05-Jan-2026

Registration No

BLAPL/451/2026

Registration Date

16-Jan-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Gourishankar Satapathy

Coram

Mr. Justice Gourishankar Satapathy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 9 )

Sub-Category

Regular Bail Applications ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ACCUSED HUSBAND AMIT KUMAR SAHU, B.P.NANDA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ODISHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Gourishankar SatapathyView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Orissa directed the trial court to verify the accused-petitioner's name and address from case records to implement its bail order in a POCSO case, rather than requiring the petitioner to produce a modified order. The court instructed that if the accused is indeed the victim's husband, the trial court must enforce the High Court's order; if not, it may pass an appropriate order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Gourishankar SatapathyView PDF

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    For Orders - Adjourned Bail Applications U/S 439 Cr.P.C./ 483 Bnss

    Mr. Justice Gourishankar Satapathy

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    For Orders - Fresh Bail Applications U/S 439 Cr.P.C / 483 Bnss.

    Mr. Justice Gourishankar Satapathy

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Gourishankar SatapathyView PDF

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 05-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BLAPL/451/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Orissa directed the trial court to verify the accused-petitioner's name and address from case records to implement its bail order in a POCSO case, rather than requiring the petitioner to produce a modified order. The court instructed that if the accused is indeed the victim's husband, the trial court must enforce the High Court's order; if not, it may pass an appropriate order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case