In a recent ruling, the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack delivered a significant decision in CRLMC No.3048 of 2025, setting aside a non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner, Bhakta Charan Rana. The court provided conditional relief, emphasizing fairness and the opportunity for the petitioner to rectify his default in court appearance.
Background of the Case
Bhakta Charan Rana, also known as Raju Rana, had been on bail since May 11, 2012, in connection with T.R. Case No.23/01 of 2012-22. He had been regularly appearing before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge (Special Court), Rairakhol. However, due to a communication gap with his lawyer, he failed to appear on one of the scheduled dates. This lapse led to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him on April 19, 2024.
The petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that he should not suffer due to the negligence of his counsel. He sought to quash the warrant, asserting that his absence was unintentional and caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Read also:- Supreme Court Ruling Insurance Company’s Liability in Accident Claims Despite Policy Cancellation
After hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case materials, Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra acknowledged that the trial court had not acted illegally in issuing the warrant. However, in the interest of justice, the High Court decided to set aside the order dated April 19, 2024, subject to specific conditions:
"The Petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of the Local Bar Association within fifteen days and furnish proof of deposit. Additionally, the Petitioner must appear before the Rairakhol court within ten days from the order date and continue participating in the proceedings without further default."
The court made it clear that any future failure to appear would empower the trial court to take coercive action against the petitioner.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Quashes FIR in Mutual Divorce Settlement Case
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Judicial Discretion: The High Court exercised its discretionary power to ensure fairness, recognizing that the petitioner’s absence was not deliberate.
- Conditional Relief: The relief granted was not absolute but contingent upon the petitioner fulfilling specific obligations, including payment of a nominal cost.
- Warning Against Default: The court explicitly warned the petitioner that further lapses would result in strict legal consequences.
Case Title: Bhakta Charan Rana @ Raju Rana vs. State of Odisha
Case Number: CRLMC No. 3048 of 2025
