ABHINAVA DALUA ABINASH BARIK, K.K.JENA vs STATE OF ODISHA(VIG.) — CRLMC/826/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: ODHC010172972026
Filing Number
CRLMC/7179/2026
Filing Date
07-Mar-2026
Registration No
CRLMC/826/2026
Registration Date
11-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
Last updated 26-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ABHINAVA DALUA ABINASH BARIK, K.K.JENA
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF ODISHA(VIG.)
-
2.BAIDHAR BEHERA
Adv. SATYA RANJAN MULIA,R.R.NAYAK,M.MULIA
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
22-Apr-2026
For Admission - Crlmc U/S 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 Bnss
Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi
-
15-Apr-2026
Dr. Justice S.K. PanigrahiView PDF
Summary: In CRLMC No.826 of 2026, the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) adjourned the matter on 15.04.2026. The case involving petitioner Abhinava Dalua against the State of Odisha (Vigilance) has been listed for hearing on 22.04.2026 as per the request of the petitioner's counsel. No substantive order on merits was passed; this was an interim procedural order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
For Admission - Crlmc U/S 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 Bnss
Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi
-
31-Mar-2026
Dr. Justice S.K. PanigrahiView PDF
-
31-Mar-2026
Fresh Admission - Crlmc U/S 482 Cr.P.C / 528 Bnss.
Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi
-
19-Mar-2026
Dr. Justice S.K. PanigrahiView PDF
-
19-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRLMC/826/2026
Summary: In CRLMC No.826 of 2026, the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) adjourned the matter on 15.04.2026. The case involving petitioner Abhinava Dalua against the State of Odisha (Vigilance) has been listed for hearing on 22.04.2026 as per the request of the petitioner's counsel. No substantive order on merits was passed; this was an interim procedural order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts