The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 3233 of 2025 Rajesh Swaini ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party(s) Ms. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 05.05.2025 Order No. 01. FIR Dated No. 521 Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 1.11.2024 Deogarh S.T. Case No.12/7 of 2025 in pending the court of learned A.S.J(W.C.), Deogarh Sections of 376(1),384 IPC r/w Section 66 (E), 67 of IT Act. and Section 6 Indecent of Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Deogarh P.S. Case No. 521 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.12/7 of 2025, pending in the court of the learned A.S.J(W.C.), Deogarh, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 376(1),384 of IPC read with Section 66 (E), 67 of IT Act and Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case is that, on 1.011.2024 the informant lodged an F.I.R. before the IIC, Deogarh P.S. stating that she had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of her friend on 23.03.2024. The present Petitioner, who is the elder brother of her friend raped her and threatened to circulate the nude photo in the social media. It is further alleged that the victim had given Rs.3,50,000/- to the Petitioner. Based on the said report, the Deogarh P.S. Case No.521 of 2024 was registered under Section 376(1)/384 of IPC read with Section 66(E)/67 of I.T. Act and Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. Hence, the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the incident was taken place on 23.03.2024. But, the F.I.R was lodged after eight months i.e. on 01.11.2024. Moreover, the Petitioner is in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31 Page 2 of 7 3 custody since 01.11.2024. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31 Page 3 of 7 4 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 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: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31 “36. The legal system, by criminalizing sex under a “false promise of marriage,” upholds this performative construct, one that assumes that women engage in Page 4 of 7 5 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 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; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31 Page 5 of 7 6 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 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31 12. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local Police Page 6 of 7 7 Station assuring that he shall maintain those plants for two years.
Decision
13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge Murmu ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31 Page 7 of 7