Orissa High Court
Sk. Rahim vs State Of Odisha on 9 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 269 of 2026
An application under Article(s) 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950.
Sk. Rahim .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through its
Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government
of Odisha, Home Department,
Bhubaneswar
2. Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar
3. Inspector In-Charge, Daitari Police
Station, Keonjhar
4. Inspector In-Charge, Ghatgaon Police
Station, Keonjhar .... Opposite Parties
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Amitabh Pradhan,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
——————————————————————————–
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 9th July, 2026
———————————————————————————–
Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:-
CRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 1 of 11
“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:
(i) declare/ hold that the action taken by the
I.1.C., Daitari Police Station (Opp. Party No.3) is
illegal and arbitrary, pertaining search Warrant,
dt.06.01.2026 in compliance with Section 96 and 97
of B.N.S.S, 2023 in connection with Daitari P.S.
Case No.107 of 2025, corresponding to G.R.Case
No.1221 of 2025, which is bad and non-est in the
eye of law;
(ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s)
as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide
interest of justice;
And for which act of kindness, the Petitioner as in
duty bound, shall ever pray.”
2. Sk. Mujahir, son of the Petitioner is an accused in Daitari
PS Case No.107 dated 29.10.2025 registered under Sections
303(2)/317(2)/109/111(3)/ 325/3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section
11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) and
Section 7(1) of the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1980,
along with others.
3. Pursuant to issue of search warrants on 06.01.2026 under
Section 96 of the BNSS by the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog. Taking),
CRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 2 of 11
Keonjhar, for search of the residential premises of the accused
persons, the house of the Petitioner was searched and a number of
articles were seized as per search / inventory lists (Annexure-3).
SUBMISSIONS
4. Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the Petitioner is a reputed businessman of the locality
having cultivation and farming. Search warrant was issued in the
name of his son Sk. Mujahir for search of his residential premises
without complying with Section 94 of the BNSS as notice was not
issued. Search warrant was issued for search of “stolen cattle, stolen
vehicles, arms, ammunitions, incriminating documents and other
incriminating articles connected with the offence”, household articles,
cash, gold and silver ornaments and vehicles were seized. Household
articles were released in zima of the Petitioner but cash of
Rs.3,86,000/- along with gold ornaments mentioned at Sl. No. 53 to
69 of the inventory lists including vehicles were taken for further
investigation. These articles do not have any connection with the
alleged offences for which the case has been registered, so they
cannot be considered to be proceeds of the crime and hence could not
have been seized. The search party / I.O. have exceeded their
jurisdiction as they could not have seized the cash, silver or the gold
CRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 3 of 11
ornaments on the vehicles which had no connection with the offences
for which the case has been registered, so their seizure is illegal and
should be declared as such. Some of the seized articles did not belong
to the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents and due to political vendetta, government machinery was
used to defame him.
5. Counter affidavits have been filed by Opp. Parties No.3 and
4. It has been stated that on the prayer of the I.O. for issuing house
search warrant, the learned J.M.F.C. issued search warrant against Sk.
Mojahir and others. Several teams were formed on 16.01.2026 for
conducting search in the houses of the accused persons as it would not
be possible for the IO to conduct the searches at the same time is so
many places. Accordingly, fifteen teams were formed and they
proceeded to different destination at Jharpokharia, Bisoi, Tentoposi,
Chadheibhol, Karanjia under Mayurbhanj District, Santarapur
(Keonjhar District), Baruan, Jajpur, Bhadrak, Ghasipura, Telkoi,
Turumunga, Thakurmunda, Jamujodi (Harichandanpur), Kendrei
(Mayurbhanj) respectively. House of Mujafar Hosen and Sk. Mojahir
Hosen, sons of Sk. Rahim were searched and different household
articles of the petitioner were seized from the drawing room, dining
room, bed room, kitchen including gold, silver ornaments, net cash of
CRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 4 of 11
Rs.3,84,100/- and the vehicles of the petitioner, the cost of which
approximately comes to Rs. 16,42,000/- owned by the petitioner and
his sons. The petitioner has failed to satisfactorily disclose or
established the legitimate source of the aforesaid huge amount and
property approximate total cost of Rs.16,42,000/- were seized for
which they could not satisfactorily disclose the legitimate source of
income of the cash, gold and property.
6. Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel
submits that the learned JMFC had the power to issue the search
warrants. Therefore, seizure of household articles, cash, gold and
vehicles being suspected to be the proceeds of the crime, pursuant to
the search is not illegal.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
7. The relevant statutory provisions – Sections 96, 97 and 185
of the BNSS are extracted below:-
“Section 96. When search-warrant may be issued –
(1) Where –
(a) any Court has reason to believe that a person to
whom a summons order under section 94 or a
requisition under sub-section (1) of section 95 has
been, or might be, addressed, will not or would notCRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 5 of 11
produce the document or thing as required by such
summons or requisition; or
(b) such document or thing is not known to the Court
to be in the possession of any person; or
(c) the Court considers that the purposes of any
inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita
will be served by a general search or inspection, it
may issue a search-warrant; and the person to
whom such warrant is directed, may search or
inspect in accordance therewith and the provisions
hereinafter contained.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, specify in the
warrant the particular place or part thereof to which
only the search or inspection shall extend; and the
person charged with the execution of such warrant
shall then search or inspect only the place or part so
specified.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall authorise
any Magistrate other than a District Magistrate or
Chief Judicial Magistrate to grant a warrant to
search for a document, parcel or other thing in the
custody of the postal authority.
“Section 97. Search of place suspected to contain
stolen property, forged documents, etc. – (1) If a
District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or
Magistrate of the first class, upon information andCRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 6 of 11
after such inquiry as he thinks necessary, has reason
to believe that any place is used for the deposit or
sale of stolen property, or for the deposit, sale or
production of any objectionable article to which this
section applies, or that any such objectionable
article is deposited in any place, he may by warrant
authorise any police officer above the rank of a
constable –
(a) to enter, with such assistance as may be
required, such place;
(b) to search the same in the manner specified in the
warrant;
(c) to take possession of any property or article
therein found which he reasonably suspects to be
stolen property or objectionable article to which this
section applies;
(d) to convey such property or article before a
Magistrate, or to guard the same on the spot until
the offender is taken before a Magistrate, or
otherwise to dispose of it in some place of safety;
(e) to take into custody and carry before a
Magistrate every person found in such place who
appears to have been privy to the deposit, sale or
production of any such property or article knowing
or having reasonable cause to suspect it to be stolenCRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 7 of 11
property or, as the case may be, objectionable
article to which this section applies.
(2) The objectionable articles to which this section
applies are–
(a) counterfeit coin;
(b) pieces of metal made in contravention of the
Coinage Act, 2011, or brought into India in
contravention of any notification for the time being
in force issued under section 11 of the Customs Act,
1962;
(c) counterfeit currency note; counterfeit stamps;
(d) forged documents;
(e) false seals;
(f) obscene objects referred to in section 294 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
(g) instruments or materials used for the production
of any of the articles mentioned in clauses (a) to
(f).”
Section 185 of the BNSS is extracted below:-
“Section 185. Search by police officer – (1)
Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or
a police officer making an investigation has
reasonable grounds for believing that anything
necessary for the purposes of an investigation into
any offence which he is authorised to investigateCRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 8 of 11
may be found in any place within the limits of the
police station of which he is in charge, or to which
he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his
opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay,
such officer may, after recording in writing the
grounds of his belief in the case-diary and specifying
in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for
which search is to be made, search, or cause search
to be made, for such thing in any place within the
limits of such station.
(2) A police officer proceeding under sub-section
(1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in
person:
Provided that the search conducted under this
section shall be recorded through audio-video
electronic means preferably by mobile phone.
(3) If he is unable to conduct the search in person,
and there is no other person competent to make the
search present at the time, he may, after recording
in writing his reasons for so doing, require any
officer subordinate to him to make the search, and
he shall deliver to such subordinate officer an order
in writing, specifying the place to be searched, and
so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be
made; and such subordinate officer may thereupon
search for such thing in such place.
CRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 9 of 11
(4) The provisions of this Sanhita as to search-
warrants and the general provisions as to searches
contained in section 103 shall, so far as may be,
apply to a search made under this section.
(5) Copies of any record made under sub-section (1)
or sub-section (3) shall forthwith, but not later than
forty-eight hours, be sent to the nearest Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and
the owner or occupier of the place searched shall,
on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a
copy of the same by the Magistrate.”
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
8. The articles have been seized pursuant to search warrants
issued by the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog. Taking), Keonjhar under Section
96 of the BNSS. As the learned Magistrate had the power to issue
such warrant and the articles having been seized on the basis of such
search warrants, being suspected to be proceeds of the crime, I find no
reason to declare the seizure illegal or arbitrary. Even otherwise, in
absence of a search warrant, a Police Officer has the power to search
and seize under Section 185 of the BNSS, I am therefore not inclined
to interfere in the matter.
CRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 10 of 11
9. The Petitioner has the remedy under Section 497 of the
BNSS to apply before the Court for release of any property which
have been seized during investigation.
10. The CRLMP is therefore dismissed.
………………….
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 9th July, 2026/Madhusmita/Sukanta
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 11-Jul-2026 20:33:00
CRLMP No. 269 of 2026 Page 11 of 11
