The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2642 of 2025 Ghanashyam Manjhi @ Ghanashyam Majhi ..…... Petitioner Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Acharya, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 16.05.2025
Legal Reasoning
FIR Dated No. Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections Order No. 01. 374 21.12.2024 Dharamgarh C.T. Section 376(2)(n)/376(3) of r/w I.P.C Sec. 4(2) of POCSO and Sec.67/67(A) of I.T.Act, Act Case of No.838/8 2024-25 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge under POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Dharamgarh P.S. Case No. 374 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.838/8 of 2024-25 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge under POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(n)/376(3) of I.P.C read with Section 4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 67/67(A) of I.T. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the informant/victim lodged an FIR before the Dharamgarh P.S. alleging that since last four years the informant and the accused had love relationship and the accused had also kept physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage. The accused also took the videos and photographs of her obscene scene and viral the same in social media. On 09.11.2024 at 6.00 P.M the accused also kept physical relationship with her with the promise of marriage and refused to marry her. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner for his complicity in this case. Moreover, the Petitioner is in custody Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 enlarged on bail. since 03.01.2025. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be Page 2 of 6 3 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application, contending that the petitioner is an accused of serious and heinous offenses. It is submitted that the petitioner has established a physical relationship with the victim under false assurances of marriage, illegally recorded explicit videos of her without consent, and threatened to circulate the same on social media, 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, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 particularly where the nature of the relationship suggests mutual engagement over a sustained period. Premature Page 3 of 6 4 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 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 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 Page 4 of 6 5 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. 39. It is in this 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 (in between the month of August and July, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 Page 5 of 6 6 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 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) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:51:24 Page 6 of 6