The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2664 OF 2025 Rajendra Dalai Petitioner Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Adv. …. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 30.04.2025 Sections Sections 376(1)/376 (2)(n) of the of the I.P.C. Dated F.I.R. No. 0173 12.09.2021 Case No. and Courts’ Name Police Station Mohana S.T. Case No.88 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.206/2021 corresponding to Mohana P.S. Case 2021 No.173 pending the court of learned Additional Sessions Paralakhemundi Judge, of in 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. Page 1 of 7 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with S.T. Case No.88 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.206/2021 corresponding to Mohana P.S. Case No.173 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 376(1)/376 (2)(n) of the of the I.P.C., has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. On12.09.2021 at 10.45 P.M., the victim lodged an F.I.R. before the Mohana Police Station to the effect that seven months back, she came to her aunt’s home at village Jubagaon under Mohana P.S. She came in contact with the Petitioner who is from the same village and love relation was developed in between them. Later, she went to Bhubaneswar for labour work for her livelihood. After ten days, Rajendra/Petitioner went there and took her to Ganesh Nagar, Hyderabad and several times he kept physical relation with her by assuring to marry her. Thereafter, they both came to Jubagaon and stayed there for two days as husband and wife. Then again he took her to Sikenderabad and fled away somewhere by leaving her alone. Now she is pregnant of three months. During course of Page 2 of 7 investigation, the I.O. visited the spot and examined the victim and other witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The victim has sent immediately to the CHC, Mohana for examination. After closer of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet vide C.S. No.257 dated 10.11.2021 under Section 376(2)(n) showing the Petitioner as absconder. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no credible or incriminating material on record to connect him to the alleged offenses. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.08.2024, and the charge sheet was filed on 10.11.2021. 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 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, illegally recorded explicit videos of her without consent, and circulated the same on social media, thereby causing her grave humiliation and distress. Given the Page 3 of 7 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 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 Page 4 of 7 Munda –vrs. State of Odisha & Anr.) wherein the Petitioner/
Legal Reasoning
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 choice, reducing them to mere bearers of honour, rather than as individuals possessing an intrinsic right to their own bodies and decisions. … Page 5 of 7 is in this light that the automatic 39. It 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, shall plant 200 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on Government land, community 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. land, or private land in Page 6 of 7 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.
Decision
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: 08-May-2025 18:35:39 Page 7 of 7