Orissa High Court
Bhavani Prasad Patnaik @ vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 11 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4127 of 2025
Bhavani Prasad Patnaik @ ..... Petitioners
Bhabani Prasad Pattnaik and
others
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Smt. S. Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
11.12.2025 Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The present application has been filed by the accused- Petitioners by invoking inherent power of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore in G.R. Case No.977 of 2022 arising out of Kundura P.S. Case No.90 of 2022 for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 457/380 of IPC. However, after conclusion of the investigation, the Petitioners Page 1 of 8. have been charge-sheeted under Section 409/411/34 of the IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1939.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.09.2022 a report was received by the concerned police station which was lodged as an FIR by the complainant namely, one Bigyani Mishra, alleging therein that on 14.09.2022 around 10.00 A.M. she received a phone call from Jogana Sahayak, Sri Daitari Harijan of Banuaguda G.P. The said person informed the informant that the PDS GP godown building entrance gate is locked and missing/broken and that he apprehended that the stock PDS rice bags might have bene stolen. Thereafter, intimation was also given to the Supply Inspector Kundura and Sarpanch of the village G.P.
5. Both the Supply Inspector as well as the P.O. of the G.P. went to the godown at about 11.30 A.M. and, in presence of the Sarpanch and villagers, it was found that the lock at the entrance of the godown broken/missing. Thereafter, they entered into the godown to verify the PDS stocks. On verification they found that the PDS rice stocks are missing and as per the calculation of the Inspector supplies about 995 PDS rice bags approximately 497.33 quintal of rise were found missing. Since the informant suspected that those stocks were stolen by somebody, an FIR was lodged against unknown accused persons under Section 457/380 of IPC, whereafter the investigation was started.
6. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed, which is attached to this application as Annexure-2 series. On perusal of the charge-sheet it appears that the present Page 2 of 8. Petitioners have been charge-sheeted for commission of an offence under Sections 409/411/34 of IPC read with Section 7 of the E.C. Act along with the Petitioners several other persons have been charge-sheeted.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the grievance of the Petitioners is that the Petitioner had filed an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court seeking exemption from the personal attendance in court. It was further submitted that the Petitioners are a reputed businessmen of the locality and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that since the investigation has been concluded and final charge-sheet has been filed, the Petitioners sought for exemption of personal appearance with an undertaking to appear before the learned trial Court whenever his presence will be required by the court. Such application having been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.09.2025 in G.R. Case No.977 of 2023, the Petitioners have approached this court by filing the present application.
8. While assailing the order dated 04.09.2025, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise his judicial discretion in favour of the Petitioners, as is permissible under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. He further contended that initially the FIR was lodged against unknown accused persons. Subsequently, the Petitioners have been implicated in the charge-sheet. Moreover, taking into consideration the fact that the Page 3 of 8. Petitioners are reputed businessmen of the locality. Learned trial court should have exercise the discretion under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the Petitioners.
9. On the contrary, the learned trial Court, being heavily influenced by the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 409 of IPC, i.e. for punishment of imprisonment for life, has been pleased to reject the application of the Petitioners. While assailing the aforesaid ground of rejection, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the severity of sentence as has been prescribed for the offence is not a criteria to be considered while exercising the discretion under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the learned trial court has committed a gross illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioners filed under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C.
10. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners further drawing attention of this Court to section 88 of the Cr.P.C. contended that the learned trial Court has ample power to ensure the appearance of the Petitioners by asking him to execute a bond as required under Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022(10) SCC 51, specifically Para-36 of the judgment and contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that there is no need for filing of the bail application Page 4 of 8. when the accused is required to be forwarded to the court for framing of charge and issuance of the process for trial. Further, if the Court is of the view that there is need for any remand then the court has to take recourse to section 88 of the Code and complete the formalities required to secure the presence of the accused for the trial. Of course there may be a situation where a remand may be required, it is only in such cases that the accused will have to be heard.
11. Although, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that they have not expressed any opinion on the merits of any case, therefore, it is up to the learned trial court to assess the factual background of the case before exercising the power under Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. In the very same paragraph the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred to section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that where the investigating agency does not want the custody of the accused there is no need for an arrest when the case is sent to the learned Magistrate under Section 170 of the Code. In the aforesaid context, they also referred to the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676.
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office reported in (2024) 7 SCC 61, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Court on its own motion vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2004 SCC Del. 53.
Page 5 of 8.13. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present application and submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any legality in passing the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 at Anexure-3, thereby rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners to dispense with their personal appearance under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State at this juncture contended that the offence alleged under Section 409 of the IPC is a non-bailable offence, and considering the severity of punishment, therefore the Petitioners should have applied for bail. He further contended that the application filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as the Petitioners have not been enlarged on bail before filing of such application by the learned trial Court. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.
14. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, as well as on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore, this Court found that the Petitioners being aggrieved by the rejection of their application to dispense with their personal appearance, have approached this court by invoking the inherent powers of this court to quash order dated 04.09.2025. In view of the provision contained in section 205 of the Cr.P.C., it is a settle position of law that exercise of such power falls within the discretion of the learned trial Court. Wherever the Court is Page 6 of 8. satisfied that the appearance of the accused is not necessary at the time of issuing summons, such court may exempt the personal appearance of the accused persons.
15. In the instant case, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 04.09.2025, has come to a conclusion that the factual background of the present case does not call for exercise of its discretion under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid context, this Court would like to observe that the focus of the learned trial Court should be on the appearance of the accused before the Court during trial. Hence, in the event the trial court comes to conclusion that there is any possibility of the accused is likely to abscond during trial, or there is a likelihood that the accused might not appear before the learned trial court, then the learned trial court would be justified in not exercising the discretion under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the accused persons.
16. On a careful analysis of the impugned order and in view of the fact that the learned trial court has exercised his discretion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the exercise of such discretion. However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and on a careful consideration of the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present application at this stage by granting liberty to the Petitioners to appear before the learned trial court by filing an application under Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the learned trial Court shall consider such application Page 7 of 8. and dispose of it on the very same day. While considering such application, the learned trial Court shall also take into consideration the observation made hereinabove, as well as judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in course of his argument.
17. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 05-Jan-2026 17:00:42 Page 8 of 8.