BASUDEV BEHERA vs STATE OF ODISHA — CRLMC/885/2026
Case under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 24th March 2026.
CNR: ODHC010164952026
Filing Number
CRLMC/6868/2026
Filing Date
05-Mar-2026
Registration No
CRLMC/885/2026
Registration Date
13-Mar-2026
Judge
Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi
Coram
Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 9 )
Sub-Category
ANY OTHER MATTER UNDER CR.P.C. ( 21 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 09-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BASUDEV BEHERA
Adv. DEBASNAN DAS,S.S.PATTNAIK, B.B.SAHOO, S.SATAPATHY, A.PRIYA, B.B.PRADHAN, H.K.TANDI, J.MAJHI,S.S.PATTNAIK, B.B.SAHOO, S.SATAPATHY, A.PRIYA, B.B.PRADHAN, H.K.TANDI, J.MAJHI, S.S.PATTNAIK, B.B.SAHOO, S.SATAPATHY, A.PRIYA, B.B.PRADHAN, H.K.TANDI, J.MAJHI
-
2.GAURANGA MOHANTY@DEBASISH MOHANTY
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF ODISHA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Dr. Justice S.K. PanigrahiView PDF
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the petitioners' Criminal Revision petition challenging the lower court's rejection of their application to summon defence witnesses in an assault case pending since 2004. The court found no merit in the petition as the petitioners failed to explain why the witness examination was necessary or how their evidence was relevant, and noted the substantial delay in filing the petition after the accused's examination, suggesting an attempt to delay proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Fresh Admission - Crlmc U/S 482 Cr.P.C.
Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi
-
05-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRLMC/885/2026
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the petitioners' Criminal Revision petition challenging the lower court's rejection of their application to summon defence witnesses in an assault case pending since 2004. The court found no merit in the petition as the petitioners failed to explain why the witness examination was necessary or how their evidence was relevant, and noted the substantial delay in filing the petition after the accused's examination, suggesting an attempt to delay proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts