The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2423 of 2025 Dharmananda @ Dharama Mallik State of Odisha -versus- …. Petitioner Mr.P.K.Jena, Advocate …. Opposite Party Ms.Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K.PANIGRAHI ORDER 24.04.2025 Order No. 01. F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station 15 25.01.2025 Singla Sections Sections 351 (2), 69, 87 of BNS. of No. Case and Courts’ Name C.T. Case No.50 2025 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Basta 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner being in custody in connection with C.T. Case No.50 of 2025 arising out of Singla P.S. Case No.15 of 2025, Page 1 of 7 pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Basta, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 351 (2), 69, 87 of the BNS, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case in short is as follows: One 25.01.2025 at about 8.30 a.m. the informant lodged an F.I.R. alleging therein that since 06 months ago, one Dharamandas Mallik @ Dharama Mallik, Village Kunduli, PS Singla District Balasore collected her phone number and thereafter contacted with her by his phone and assured to marry her. On 17.01.2025 around 10 a.m., the said Dharamananda Mallik came to the house of complainant with his motor cycle, took the complainant towards Chandipur Sea Beach. When returned, on the way near Haladipada Gala Pola, at about 8 p.m., the accused Dharamananda Mallik stopped his motor cycle and tied the mouth of complainant by means of a napkin and took her to a nearby field where he ravished her against her will. After that when complainant protested then the accused threatened her to do away with her life by seeing a knife. Thereafter the accused bring her to nearby her house and dropped her with a caution that if she discloses the matter before anyone, then he will not marry her. On 17.1.2025 the complainant disclosed the matter before her mother. On 19.1.2025 at about 11 a.m., accused again came to the house of the Page 2 of 7 complainant where he was detained by the family members of the complainant and accordingly a meeting was sat in presence of the father of accused, husband of Sarpanch, named-Dilip Kumar Jena and the father of accused took Zima of accused by giving an undertaking. Later neither any compromise took place regarding that issue for which finding no other way complainant reported the matter before the concerned police station for taking legal action against the accused-Petitioner. Hence, the case. 5.
Legal Reasoning
prima facie material against the Petitioner to implicate him in the crime in question and that he has no criminal antecedent. Further, the Petitioner is languishing in jail since 25.01.2025. In light of these facts, the counsel prays that the Petitioner be enlarged on bail, as continued detention is unjustified in the absence of substantial evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that there is prima facie material against the Petitioner to implicate in the crime and as investigation of the case is going on, the Petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage as there is every likelihood of tampering with prosecution evidence. Given the egregious nature of the allegations and the potential for evidence tampering, the State strongly opposes any grant of bail to the Petitioner. Page 3 of 7 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 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 Page 4 of 7 Court vide judgment dated 14.02.2025 taking into account the various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court had made an elaborate discussion 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: of marriage,” upholds “36. The legal system, by criminalizing sex under a this “false promise 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. instrument of moral policing. 37. In its pursuit of justice, the law must not become an 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 choice, reducing them to mere bearers of honour, rather than as individuals possessing an intrinsic right to their own bodies and decisions. … the automatic light 39. 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.” that this in is It Page 5 of 7 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, shall plant 100 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. 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 Page 6 of 7 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.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no
Decision
13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Bichi (Dr. S.K.Panigrahi) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 29-Apr-2025 20:41:28 Page 7 of 7