The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2668 of 2025 Rabinarayan Panda ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Pradip Kumar Sahoo, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party(s) Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 30.04.2025 Dated FIR No. Police Station Case No. Courts’ Name and Sections 0214 17.12.2024 Cantonment G.R.
Legal Reasoning
Case No.1415 of 2024 arising out of P.S. Case No.214 of 2024 pending in of court the learned JMFC-II Court, Cuttack Sections 69/115(2)/296/ 351(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2 3. The petitioner, currently in judicial custody in connection with G.R. Case No.1415 of 2024 arising out of P.S. Case No.214 of 2024 pending in the court of learned JMFC-II Court, Cuttack, registered for alleged offences under Sections 69/115(2)/296/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), has filed the present application seeking release on bail. 4. Based on the F.I.R. dated 17.12.2024 lodged by the Sampurna Acharya, the case against the petitioner arises from an alleged incident involving deceitful means leading to sexual intercourse. The complainant and the accused, Rabinarayan, were initially engaged with their guardians’ consent but had a fallout over another girl, leading to a period of no communication. In November 2024, Rabinarayan contacted the complainant via Instagram, expressing his intent to marry her despite her parents’ disapproval. He assured her of his family’s acceptance and promised to resolve matters with her father. Subsequently, he took her to Naraj, where, after a discussion about marriage, he allegedly forced himself on her and confiscated her phone when she tried to call her friend. Later, he invited her to meet his parents at Baliyatra, where she confronted him about another girl, Smita, whom he claimed was his sister but was later revealed to be his girlfriend. Page 2 of 7 3 Following this, Smita requested call records and photos from the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant received abusive calls and threats, which she reported to the Puri Police Station. She then filed the present F.I.R., accusing Rabinarayan of sexual intercourse under false pretences.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences as claimed by the prosecution. There is no credible or incriminating material on record to connect him to the alleged offenses. The petitioner has been in custody since 12.02.2025. 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 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 egregious nature of the allegations and the potential for Page 3 of 7 4 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 recognizes 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/ Page 4 of 7 5 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. … 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 Page 5 of 7 6 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 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on Government the land, community 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 Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to cancellation of the bail. Page 6 of 7 7 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. If it is noticed that, the Petitioner employees the same technique of blackmailing or similar kind of offence is committed by the Petitioner, the bail shall be automatically cancelled.
Decision
14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Sumitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-May-2025 12:19:30 Page 7 of 7