The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2275 OF 2025 Priyabrata Behera Petitioner Mr. Anugraha Narayan Samantray, Adv. …. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 02.
Decision
ORDER 15.05.2025 F.I.R. No. 04 Dated 07.01.2025 Case No. and Courts’ Name Police Station Salepur Spl. G.R. Case No.05 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Addl. District Judge- cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack Sections Sections-75/77/ 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and read with Sections- 8 &17 of the POCSO Act. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Salepur P.S. Case No.04 of 2025 corresponding to Spl. G.R. Case No.05 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Addl. District Judge- cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack, registered for Page 1 of 6 the alleged commission of offences under Sections-75/77/ 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and read with Sections- 8 &17 of the POCSO Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact, in nutshell, is that one Umakanta Behera (Informant) lodged a written report before the IIC, Salepur P.S. alleging therein that on 07.01.2025 at about 12.05 A.M., his brother-in-law’s son is the present Petitioner who regularly visited the house of the victim. On the last June, 2024, the present Petitioner brought one of his friends named Sashikanta Mohanty @ Pintu to his house. Then they took his daughter to visit Bhubaneswar and there they stayed in the rented room situated at Bhubaneswar, where Sashikanta kissed her daughter forcibly and kept sexual relationship with his minor daughter who is aged about 17 years. Now they are threatening his minor daughter to viral the video in the social media. Hence, this case. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not at all involved in the alleged crime. The victim also specifically stated in her statement that she has no physical relationship with the Petitioner and another. So, the offence under Section-376 of the IPC as alleged is not made out against the Petitioner. He further submits that out of grudge and ill intention with the family of the victim and the Petitioner and another, the father of the victim was foisted a false case against the Petitioner and another in order to harass them. He further Page 2 of 6 submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 08.01.2025. Therefore, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application, contending that the Petitioner is accused of serious and heinous offenses. It is submitted that the Petitioner established a physical relationship with the victim under false assurances of marriage, thereby causing her grave humiliation and distress. Given the egregious nature of the allegations and the potential for evidence tampering, the State strongly opposes any grant of bail to the Petitioner. 7. This Court finds it necessary to observe that in cases involving allegations of sexual offences arising from relationships developed on the basis of a purported promise of marriage, the issue of consent must be approached with careful consideration. While the law recognises that consent obtained through deception or coercion may not be valid, it is equally important to acknowledge the principle of sexual autonomy, which presumes that an individual is capable of making voluntary choices unless demonstrably impaired. Allegations that consent was vitiated solely on the ground of a failed promise may not, in every case, constitute an offence, particularly where the nature of the relationship suggests mutual engagement over a sustained period. Premature conclusions regarding lack of consent, in the absence of clear Page 3 of 6 indicators of coercion or bad faith, may cause unfair prejudice. Each case must therefore turn on its own facts, and courts must tread cautiously in drawing inferences at the pre-trial stage. 8. This Court had an occasion to deal with a case of similar facts to this case i.e. in CRLMC No.4485 of 2024 (Manoj Kumar Munda –vrs. State of Odisha & Anr.) wherein the Petitioner/ alleged accused had challenged the proceeding initiated against him for commission of the alleged offences under Sections 376(2)(a), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the I.P.C. This Court vide judgment dated 14.02.2025 taking into account the various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court had made an elaborate discussions on the concept of consent and the issue of sexual autonomy and allowed the CRLMC No.4485 of 2024 quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner. The ordering portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: “36. The legal system, by criminalizing sex under a “false promise of marriage,” upholds this performative construct, one that assumes that women engage in sexual relationships only as a prelude to matrimony, rather than as autonomous agents of their own desires. 37. In its pursuit of justice, the law must not become an instrument of moral policing. It must acknowledge that sexual agency is not a promise, nor is it a contract that mandates a predetermined outcome. To assume otherwise is to deny women the full measure of their autonomy, desire, and Page 4 of 6 is in this choice, reducing them to mere bearers of honour, rather than as individuals possessing an intrinsic right to their own bodies and decisions. … 39. It light that the automatic criminalization of failed relationships under the guise of “false promise of marriage” must be scrutinized. The assumption that every physical relationship between a man and a woman carries the implicit condition of matrimony is not a principle of law but a vestige of control.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, and keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, and the view taken in Manoj Kumar Munda (supra), this Court is of the view that the Petitioner should be granted bail by the court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case, on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that:- i. The Petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.; ii. The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; iii. The Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner; and iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon (during June, 2025 to August, 2025), shall plant 200 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on Government land, community land, or private land in the possession of the Petitioner or his family members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying the land for plantation. Page 5 of 6 Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to cancellation of the bail. 10. The District Nursery/D.F.O. shall extend the helping hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner and the Revenue Authority shall assist the Petitioner in identifying the location for plantation of the saplings. If the land is not available, the Petitioner to approach the Revenue Authority for identifying the land for plantation and the Revenue Authority shall do the needful. 11. The I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station in coordination with the local Forest Officer shall monitor; whether the Petitioner has planted the saplings or not. 12. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local Police Station assuring that he shall maintain those plants for two years. 13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Sumitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-May-2025 13:29:10 Page 6 of 6