JATINDRA PRADHAN PRANAYA KUMAR MAHARAJ vs STATE OF ODISHA — CRLMP/720/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

Next hearing 23-Jun-2026

CNR: ODHC010419672026

Filing Number

CRLMP/16516/2026

Filing Date

02-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRLMP/720/2026

Registration Date

03-Jun-2026

Judge

Miss Justice Savitri Ratho

Coram

Miss Justice Savitri Ratho

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 9 )

Sub-Category

ANY OTHER MATTER UNDER CR.P.C. ( 21 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JATINDRA PRADHAN PRANAYA KUMAR MAHARAJ

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ODISHA

  2. 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KEONJHAR

  3. 3.THE IIC BARBIL POLICE STATION

  4. 4.COLLECTOR, KEONJHAR

  5. 5.SUB COLLECTOR, CHAMPUA

  6. 6.THE SDPO BARBIL

  7. 7.THE TAHASILDAR, BARBIL

  8. 8.KISHAN KARMAKAR

  9. 9.KISHORE KARMAKAR

  10. 10.SUKHDEV KARMAKAR

  11. 11.INDERJIT KARMAKAR

  12. 12.RAVI KARMAKAR

  13. 13.RAM KARMAKAR

Case History

  1. 23-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 23-Jun-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Miss Justice Savitri Ratho

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    Miss Justice Savitri RathoView PDF

    The case was adjourned to 23.06.2026. The court found insufficient evidence that petitioner Jatindra Pradhan had authority to file the writ application on behalf of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. The petitioner's counsel was directed to submit supporting documents demonstrating authorization before the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 19-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 02-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRLMP/720/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The case was adjourned to 23.06.2026. The court found insufficient evidence that petitioner Jatindra Pradhan had authority to file the writ application on behalf of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. The petitioner's counsel was directed to submit supporting documents demonstrating authorization before the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case