The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 3253 of 2025 Sahil Mahammad ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Routray, 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.
Legal Reasoning
FIR Dated Sections Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name No. 46 Sections 191(2)/64(2)(m)/115(2)/ 296/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 28.02.2025 Nuapada C.T. Case No.138 of 2025 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 2 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Nuapada P.S. Case No. 46 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.138 of 2025, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada , registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 191(2)/64(2)(m)/115(2)/296/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case is that since 03.10.2024 till the date of lodging of the FIR the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl repeatedly giving assurance of marriage and when the victim asked him for marriage, he abused her and threatened to do away with her life. It is also alleged that the petitioner has taken cash of Rs.50,000/- from the victim. Hence, this case. 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 01.03.2025. 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 an accused of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 Page 2 of 6 3 serious and heinous offenses. It is submitted that the petitioner has established a physical relationship with the victim under false assurances of marriage. 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, 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 Page 3 of 6 4 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 Page 4 of 6 5 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 100 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 Page 5 of 6 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.
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: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 Page 6 of 6