The accused wanted the trial moved to another district, alleging that lawyers of the local Bar were obstructing the proceedings and intimidating them. The court found no basis for that: the Registrar’s report said the trial was going on smoothly, a member of the same Bar was in fact representing one of the accused, and no complaint of obstruction had ever been made. So the transfer was refused. But the court took seriously a narrower worry, that the presence of many Bar members, the victim being an advocate, made the courtroom atmosphere tense, and met it not by shifting the case but by ordering an in-camera trial, to be concluded quickly under the Supreme Court’s timelines for acid-attack cases.
Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has declined to transfer the trial of an acid-attack case from the Court of the Sessions Judge, Gajapati at Parlakhemundi to Berhampur, but has directed that the trial be conducted in camera and concluded expeditiously, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s time-bound directions for acid-attack cases [Dakoju Venkat Rao and Another v. State of Odisha and Another].
Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra disposed of the transfer petition with those directions.
The transfer plea, and why it failed
The petitioners, the accused in the sessions case, sought the transfer on the grounds of alleged obstruction in the trial, intimidation and non-cooperation by the advocates of the Parlakhemundi Bar Association. The informant, who was the then Secretary of that Bar Association, opposed the plea, and the State placed on record a written instruction from the Registrar, Civil Courts, Gajapati.
That report, the Court noted, undercut the grounds urged. It recorded that a member of the Parlakhemundi Bar had been representing one of the accused since June 2025, that the office had no information of any resolution by the Bar Association not to represent the accused, and that it had not come across any obstruction, intimidation or non-cooperation by the local advocates, no petition or intimation to that effect having been given to the court. The proceeding, the Registrar reported, was going on smoothly without external pressure or influence. The informant likewise submitted that there was no such resolution of the Bar Association and that the allegations were incorrect, adding that a transfer to Berhampur would delay the trial, since most prosecution witnesses were of the same locality. On this material, and given that six of the twenty-five prosecution witnesses had already been examined, the Court declined to entertain the prayer for transfer.
An in-camera trial instead
Having refused the transfer, the Court addressed a distinct concern raised by the petitioners’ senior counsel. The victim in the case being an advocate and a member of the Parlakhemundi Bar, and the informant now the President of that Bar Association, it was submitted that, because of the sensitiveness of the incident, many Bar members remained present during the trial, creating an intimidating atmosphere in the courtroom that might affect a fair trial; the petitioners accordingly sought an in-camera trial.
The Court accepted that course. In view of the sensitiveness of the issue and the concern of the accused, it held that an in-camera trial would be a just and proper way to mitigate their grievance, and directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the case in camera and to try to conclude it at the earliest, ensuring that the remaining witnesses, including the victim, were examined. It also directed the President and Secretary of the Parlakhemundi Bar Association to ensure a smooth trial and not to create any hindrance through the Bar members, so that the proceeding could be disposed of in a timely manner.
The expedition directions
The Court situated its directions within the Supreme Court’s framework for the time-bound disposal of acid-attack cases in Shaheen Malik v. Union of India, and the Orissa High Court’s own circular implementing it. That circular prescribes indicative timelines for trial courts, framing of charges within fifteen days of the filing of the charge-sheet, completion of the trial within six months, and delivery of judgment within the prescribed period, and requires such cases to be taken up on priority.
The Court further directed the trial court to expedite the case in line with the Supreme Court’s directions in CBI v. Mir Usman, which lay down that once the examination of witnesses begins it should continue day to day until all witnesses in attendance are examined, that adjournments are not to be granted for the convenience of counsel, and that non-cooperation by an accused or counsel is to be dealt with firmly, including, in appropriate cases, by notice to show cause why bail should not be cancelled where the non-cooperation is in active collusion to delay the trial. A copy of the judgment was directed to be communicated to the President of the Bar Association and to the Sessions Judge.
ALSO READ: Acid Attacks On Women: Legislative And Judicial Responses In India
Why it matters
The order illustrates the disciplined approach a court takes to a plea to transfer a criminal trial. Transfer is an exceptional remedy, granted where a fair trial is genuinely imperilled, not on unsubstantiated apprehension; and where the official record contradicts the alleged grounds, here, a Registrar’s report that the trial was proceeding smoothly and that a local Bar member was actually appearing for one of the accused, the case for transfer collapses. The Court’s refusal turned on that evidentiary mismatch, reinforced by the practical cost of transfer to witnesses drawn from the locality and to the timeline the case is required to keep.
What is instructive is the Court’s willingness to craft a tailored remedy for the residual, genuine concern. Rather than uproot the trial, the Court used the lesser and more precise device of an in-camera proceeding to address the anxiety about a charged courtroom atmosphere, coupled with a direction to the Bar’s office-bearers to ensure that no hindrance is caused. An in-camera trial restricts who may be present and can defuse the pressure of a crowded, partisan gallery while keeping the case in its natural forum, a proportionate response that protects the fairness of the trial without the delay and dislocation a transfer would bring.
Running through the order is the imperative of speed particular to acid-attack cases. The Supreme Court’s directions in Shaheen Malik, and the day-to-day-trial discipline reiterated in Mir Usman, reflect a recognition that delay in such cases compounds the harm to the victim and erodes the prospect of justice; by anchoring its directions to those authorities and to the High Court’s own circular, the Court ensured that the fairness afforded to the accused through the in-camera order does not come at the expense of the expeditious conclusion the law demands. The allegations in the underlying case remain to be tried, and the accused retain the presumption of innocence; the present order concerns only the forum and manner of the trial, which will now proceed, in camera and on priority, before the same court.
Case Title: Dakoju Venkat Rao and Another v. State of Odisha and Another [TRPCRL No. 45 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Date of Judgment: September 11, 2026 | Neutral Citation: 2026:OHC:124
Appearances: Senior Advocate L. Samantaray, with Advocate B.P. Panda, for the petitioners; Additional Standing Counsel M.K. Dash for the State; Advocate A. Das for the informant.
Status: Transfer petition disposed of. Prayer to transfer the acid-attack trial declined; in-camera trial and expeditious conclusion directed under the Supreme Court’s acid-attack timelines. Allegations in the trial untested; accused entitled to the presumption of innocence.