The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2808 OF 2025 Mohan Nahak …. Petitioner Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 01.
Decision
ORDER 01.05.2025 F.I.R. No. 98 Dated 05.02.2025 Case No. and Courts’ Name Police Station Rambha G.R. Case No.269 of 2025 pending in of the court J.M.F.C., learned Khallikote Sections Section 69 of BNS, 2023 the 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 Rambha P.S. Case No.98 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.269 of 2025 pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote registered for the alleged commission of offences under Page 1 of 6 Sections 69 of the of the I.P.C., has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the informant reported the matter before the police station with an allegation that since last two years, the petitioner had developed the love relationship with the informant. Thereafter, it is alleged that with the assurance of marriage, the petitioner on 22.08.2024 kept the physical relationship with the informant and thereafter again on 31.01.2025, the petitioner called to the informant to go to Rourkela and accordingly the informant came with the petitioner with the believe that the petitioner will marry to the informant. It is further alleged that the petitioner subsequently married to the informant in a temple and kept physical relationship. Thereafter, it is further alleged that the petitioner on 04.02.2025, left the informant near the village of the informant with all the luggage and fled away from the spot, but the informant searched the petitioner for some time and that was in vain. 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 languishing in custody since 06.02.2025. In light of these facts, the counsel Page 2 of 6 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. Given the egregious nature of the allegations and the potential for evidence tampering, the State strongly opposes the 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. Page 3 of 6 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 choice, reducing them to mere bearers of honour, rather than as individuals possessing an intrinsic right to their own bodies and decisions. Page 4 of 6 is in this … 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, shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on Government land, community 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. land, or private land 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) Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 05-May-2025 18:42:58 Page 6 of 6