Orissa High Court
Manish Agarwal vs State Of Odisha ……. Opposite Party … on 26 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.949 of 2026
Manish Agarwal ......... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Abinash Routray,
Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
26.03.2026
Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the
documents placed before this Court, specifically, the impugned order
dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Malkangiri in CT Case No. 85 of 2025, the order dated 22.07.2025 of
the Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 7877 of 2025, and the High
Court of Orissa (Video Conferencing) Rules, 2025.
3. The facts, briefly stated, are these. The petitioner stands accused
of offences under Sections 306/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in
CT Case No. 85 of 2025 pending before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Malkangiri. In connection with this case, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
2
petitioner approached the Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 7877
of 2025. By order dated 22.07.2025, the Court granted an anticipatory
bail to the petitioner, subject to the condition that he “shall remain
present before the trial Court on each date of hearing.” Since July 2025, the
petitioner has complied with this condition and has appeared on
every date fixed by the trial Court.
4. The petitioner presently serves as Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Odisha, stationed at Bhubaneswar. The seat of trial at
Malkangiri lies approximately 650 kilometres from Bhubaneswar.
The terrain and connectivity between the two places are such that
each round trip consumes two to three working days. In view of this
practical difficulty, and relying upon the High Court of Orissa (Video
Conferencing) Rules, 2025, the petitioner moved an application
before the trial Court seeking permission to appear through video
conferencing. The learned trial Court, by the impugned order dated
14.10.2025, rejected the said application, holding in effect that the
condition imposed by the Supreme Court required physical presence
and could not be satisfied through virtual appearance.
5. The narrow question for consideration is whether the condition
imposed by the Supreme Court that the petitioner shall remain
present before the trial Court on each date of hearing requires
physical presence in the courtroom, or whether appearance through
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
3
video conferencing, as permitted under the applicable Rules and
statutory provisions, constitutes valid legal presence sufficient to
comply with the condition.
6. Before considering what is meant by “presence,” it is necessary to
first clarify what is meant by the “Court” before which the petitioner
is required to remain present.
7. In common understanding, the word “court” brings to mind a
physical space, a dais, a witness box, rows of benches, and court staff
attending to proceedings. For a long time, a court was understood in
precisely these terms, as a place where the sovereign or the
sovereign’s representative administered justice. The physical setting
and the institution were closely identified, and it was difficult to
separate one from the other.
8. The law, however, does not equate a court with its physical
setting. In the legal sense, a court is the exercise of judicial power by
a duly constituted authority within its jurisdiction. It is the Judge,
acting within the scope of that authority, who constitutes the court,
while the building merely provides a venue. Even where proceedings
are conducted outside a conventional courtroom, such as during
emergencies, their judicial character and binding nature remain
unaffected. The court is therefore defined by the authority of the
presiding officer, not by the physical location of the courtroom.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
4
9. This understanding has now been codified. Rule 2(d) of the High
Court of Orissa (Video Conferencing) Rules, 2025 defines “Court”
to include a virtual court or tribunal. The use of the word “includes”
is deliberate and expansive. It does not replace the physical court but
enlarges the concept to embrace the virtual. When a Judge presides
over proceedings through a video conferencing platform sanctioned
by the Rules, he/she is no less “the Court” than when he/she sits in
the courtroom. The judicial authority is the same; the jurisdiction is
the same; the power to administer oaths, record evidence, and pass
orders is the same. Only the medium of communication has changed.
10. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider this question, albeit
in a different context, in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India1.
The Court, while directing the live-streaming of proceedings,
recognised that the concept of an “open court” is not confined to the
physical courtroom. The principle of open justice, the Court
observed, is served equally, indeed, in many ways more effectively,
when proceedings are accessible through electronic means. The
Court held as follows:
“24 For lawyers and judges familiar with the cocoon of a
physical court room, live-streaming would require
attitudinal changes. They include the maintenance of
order and sequencing of oral arguments. Judges in charge1
(2018)Signature
10 SCC 639 Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
5of their courts would have to devote attention to case
management. But these demands are necessary incidents
of the challenges of our time. Slow as we have been to
adapt to the complexities of our age, it is nonetheless
necessary for the judiciary to move apace with
technology. By embracing technology, we would only
promote a greater degree of confidence in the judicial
process. Hence, the Chief Justices of the High Courts
should be commended to consider the adoption of live-
streaming both in the High Courts and in the district
judiciaries in phases, commensurate with available
resources and technical support. The High Courts would
have to determine the modalities for doing so by framing
appropriate rules.”
11. If the concept of an “open court” can extend beyond physical
walls, there is no reason in principle why the concept of “a Court”
itself cannot.
12. The statutory scheme points in the same direction. Even under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 317 empowered the
Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused where
such attendance was “not necessary in the interests of justice”, while
Section 273 recognised that proceedings could lawfully continue
even when personal attendance stood dispensed with, so long as the
accused was represented through counsel.
13. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has now placed
the matter beyond doubt. Section 355 expressly declares that
Signature Not Verified
personal attendance of the accused includes attendance through
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
6
audio-video electronic means. Section 530 further provides that all
trials, inquiries and proceedings under the Sanhita, including
examination of complainants and witnesses, recording of evidence
and appellate proceedings, may be held in electronic mode.
Significantly, Section 2(a) itself assigns an expansive meaning to
“audio-video electronic” so as to include video conferencing and
recording of evidence. The statutory scheme, therefore, does not treat
virtual participation as an exceptional deviation from ordinary
procedure. On the contrary, it incorporates electronic presence into
the procedural architecture of criminal justice itself.
14. Thus, both under the earlier procedural law and under the
present statutory framework, the concept of attendance before the
Court is not confined to rigid physical presence inside the courtroom.
What the law insists upon is effective submission to the authority
and process of the Court. That requirement can, in an appropriate
case, be duly satisfied through video conferencing.
15. These provisions are not incidental as they reflect a clear
legislative intent that the process of the court may, where
appropriate, extend beyond a physical setting. They reflect a
considered legislative judgment that the courtroom of the twenty-
first century is not bounded by brick and mortar.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
7
16. India is a vast country, and the administration of justice must
remain alive to the realities of distance and accessibility. Justice is not
something that is delivered only at the end of a proceeding; it must
be present throughout its course, shaping the manner in which the
process itself unfolds. To insist, for instance, that a party travel
several hundred kilometres for a brief hearing of a few minutes,
when the same purpose can be served without such burden, is to
allow procedure to overshadow fairness. This Court cannot endorse
such a result. It is the duty of this Court, and indeed of the judiciary
as a whole, to ensure that participation in the trial is secured in a
manner that is just, fair and reasonable to all.
17. I hold, therefore, that the word “Court” as used in the condition
of the Supreme Court’s order is capable of including both the
physical courtroom and a virtual courtroom constituted under the
Video Conferencing Rules. In the present statutory context, it must be
understood in that broader sense. The condition requires the
petitioner to be present before the trial Court, not necessarily within
the physical premises of the Court. The distinction is material.
18. The next step in the analysis is to ask whether appearance
through video conferencing amounts to “presence” within the
meaning of the bail condition. On this question, the law admits of no
serious debate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
8
19. The locus classicus is State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai2.
The two-Judge Bench, speaking through Dr. Justice A.R.
Lakshmanan, was called upon to decide whether a witness who
deposes through video conferencing can be said to have been
examined “in the presence of the accused” as required by Section 273
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court’s reasoning
deserves reproduction. At paragraphs 16-18, the Court held as
follows:
“Video conferencing is an advancement in science and
technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with
someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he
is present before you–i.e. in your presence. In fact,
he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for
touching, one can see, hear and observe as if the party is
in the same room. In video conferencing, both parties are
in presence of each other.”
20. The Court went further and held as follows:
“The submissions of Respondent’s counsel are akin to an
argument that a person seeing through binoculars or
telescope is not actually seeing what is happening. It is
akin to submitting that a person seen through binoculars
or telescope is not in the ‘presence’ of the person
observing.”
21. The analogy is apt and, with respect, difficult to dispute. The
Court held that so long as the accused and or his pleader is present
when evidence is recorded through video conferencing, such
2
(2003)Signature
4 SCC 601. Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
9
evidence is recorded “in the presence” of the accused and satisfies
the requirement of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The recording of such evidence, it was further held, is in accordance
with the procedure established by law.
22. Perhaps the most significant endorsement of virtual appearance
in the specific context of accused persons came in Krishna Veni Nagam
v. Harish Nagam3. There, the Supreme Court directed the use of
video conferencing facilities in matrimonial and family law cases to
ease the hardship of parties compelled to travel long distances for
court appearances. At para 14, the Court observed:
“One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if
proceedings are transferred on account of genuine
difficulties faced by the wife. The husband may find it
difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is
convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a
solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be
appropriate that available technology of video
conferencing is used where both the parties have equal
difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to
both the parties. We understand that in every district in
the country video conferencing is now available. In any
case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be
fully utilized and all the High Courts ought to issue
appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the
use of video conferencing for certain category of cases.
Matrimonial cases where one of the parties resides outside3
(2017)Signature
4 SCC 150 Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
10court’s jurisdiction is one of such categories. Wherever
one or both the parties make a request for use of video
conference, proceedings may be conducted on video
conferencing, obviating the needs of the party to appear in
person. In several cases, this Court has directed recording
of evidence by video conferencing.”
23. The principle that emerges is clear. The law recognises that a
person appearing through video conferencing is, for all legal
purposes, present before the court. The person can see and hear the
Judge, and can address the Court in real time. The authority of the
Court extends equally to such appearance as it does to one made in
person. What the law requires is submission to the Court’s process,
not physical presence within the courtroom.
24. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the petitioner’s
application on the view that the condition of remaining present
before the trial Court requires physical presence. This view is
untenable. It overlooks the Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, which
permit appearance through electronic means at all stages, and is
contrary to settled precedents that recognise such appearance as
valid presence before the Court. While permission may be declined
on facts, it cannot be rejected as a matter of principle. A proper
reading therefore requires that “presence before the Court” includes
virtual presence where permitted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
11
25. The purpose of requiring the accused to remain present on each
date is to secure his availability and cooperation with the trial, not to
impose a burden before conviction. In the present case, the petitioner,
serving as Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha, is required to
travel from Bhubaneswar to Malkangiri, a distance of about 650
kilometres, resulting in the loss of two to three working days for each
hearing.
26. There is a clear irony in this arrangement. The State, which
prosecutes the petitioner, is at the same time his employer, and it is
the State itself that bears the consequence of his repeated absence
from official duties. Such disruption serves no useful purpose when
the object of the condition is merely to ensure participation in the
trial. That object can be fully achieved, and far more efficiently, by
permitting the petitioner to appear through video conferencing.
27. This unnecessarily affects the petitioner and also disrupts public
administration, as the State, which is prosecuting him, is also
deprived of his services. Where the object of the condition is to secure
participation in the trial, that purpose can be equally achieved, and
more efficiently, by permitting appearance through video
conferencing.
28. The petitioner does not seek exemption from appearance. He has
complied with the condition imposed by the Supreme Court and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
12
continues to do so. What he seeks is permission to remain present
through a mode recognised by law. The distinction is important.
Appearance through video conferencing is not absence but presence
in a different form, where the petitioner remains before the Court,
subject to its authority, responsive to its directions, and fully within
its control.
29. In this view of the matter, the condition of remaining present
before the trial Court cannot be read as insisting on physical
attendance in every case. The requirement is satisfied so long as the
petitioner is before the Court in a manner recognised by law, able to
participate in the proceedings and subject to its authority. Where
such presence is secured through video conferencing, with the
permission of the Court, the condition stands complied with.
30. For the foregoing reasons, the CRLMC is allowed. The impugned
order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Malkangiri in CT Case No. 85 of 2025 is hereby set aside.
31. The following directions are issued:
a) The petitioner is permitted to appear before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in CT Case No. 85 of
2025 through video conferencing from a designated Court
point at Bhubaneswar or such other place as may be permitted
by the trial Court, on each date of hearing.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10
13
b) Such appearance through video conferencing shall be treated as
sufficient compliance with the condition imposed by the
Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 7877 of 2025 that the
petitioner shall remain present before the trial Court on each
date of hearing.
c) It shall be open to the trial Court, in its discretion, to require the
physical presence of the petitioner on such dates as it may
consider extremely unavoidable in the interest of justice.
d) The modality and manner of appearance through video
conferencing shall be regulated by the learned trial Court in
accordance with the applicable Rules.
e) The petitioner shall continue to cooperate with the trial and
shall not misuse the liberty granted.
32. The CRLMC stands disposed of, accordingly.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Mar-2026 16:35:10