High Court affirms that interim protection must be respected; quashes trial court's orders for police remand
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has quashed the orders of police remand issued by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore, against Kartika Lama, an accused in a narcotics case. The High Court's decision came after it was found that the orders violated an interim protection previously granted by the High Court, which directed "no coercive action" against Lama.
The petitioner, Kartika Lama, was involved in T.R. Case No.34 of 2021, arising out of the Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.85 of 2021, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case had been pending due to an interim protection order passed by the High Court on December 23, 2024, safeguarding Lama against coercive actions. Despite this, the trial court issued a production warrant and granted police remand for one day in February 2026, leading Lama to seek relief from the High Court.
Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, presiding over the case, emphasized the importance of respecting interim protection orders, stating that any coercive action, including police remand, during such protection is unsustainable. The court highlighted that the interim protection ensures the liberty of the accused and must not be overridden by production warrants or police remand orders.
The court also clarified the scope of interim protection, noting that such orders are intended to protect the accused's liberty during the pendency of proceedings. It criticized the trial court's decision to allow police remand despite being informed about the High Court's interim order, which was intended to prevent coercive actions against Lama.
The court's decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law, particularly in ensuring that interim protection orders are respected by lower courts. This ruling serves as a reminder to the judiciary and law enforcement agencies of the necessity to adhere to the legal safeguards intended to protect individual liberties.
Bottom line:-
Interim protection granted by a High Court directing "no coercive action" against an accused must be respected, and any order for police remand during the pendency of such protection is not sustainable in law.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 167, 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Kartika Lama @ Bahadur @ Kartik v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2912298
