The Orissa High Court recently delivered a significant order in CRLMC No.3050 of 2025, providing conditional relief to the petitioner, Manoranjan @ Jiulu Mahakud, who challenged a non-bailable warrant issued against him. The court’s decision, presided over by Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, balanced judicial rigor with compassionate consideration.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated 03.02.2025, where the learned SDJM, Karanjia, issued a non-bailable warrant in GR Case No.318 of 2008. The petitioner had been on bail since 2014 and had been regularly appearing before the court. However, due to illness and a communication gap with his lawyer, he missed a court date, leading to the issuance of the warrant.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the lapse was unintentional and caused by the lawyer’s failure to represent the petitioner adequately. They contended that the petitioner should not suffer due to the counsel’s oversight.
Read also:- Kerala HC Clarifies: Property Possession Alone Doesn't Make One Liable for Senior Citizen's Maintenance
After reviewing the case, the court acknowledged that the trial court had not acted illegally in issuing the warrant. However, emphasizing the principles of justice and fairness, the High Court decided to set aside the warrant under specific conditions:
"In the larger interests of justice and to provide another opportunity to the Petitioners, this Court deems it proper to set aside the order dated 03.02.2025... subject to payment of a cost of Rs.500/- by the Petitioners to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of the Local Bar Association within fifteen days."
Read also:- High Court Grants Bail to Pradeep Rathore in Arms Act Case
The petitioner was directed to appear before the SDJM, Karanjia, within ten days, furnish proof of the cost deposit, and continue participating in the proceedings without further default. The court also warned that any future lapses would result in coercive actions.
Key Takeaways
- Judicial Discretion: The court demonstrated flexibility by setting aside the warrant while imposing a nominal cost, ensuring accountability without undue hardship.
- Legal Responsibility: The order highlights the importance of timely communication between clients and lawyers to avoid procedural mishaps.
- Conditional Relief: The petitioner’s relief was contingent upon strict compliance, underscoring the court’s emphasis on discipline in legal proceedings.
Case Title: Manoranjan @ Jiulu Mahakud & Anr. vs. State of Orissa & Anr.
Case Number: CRLMC No. 3050 of 2025
