The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 4654 of 2025 Raja Kumar Bisoyi State of Odisha CORAM: …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Santosh Ku. Mahanty, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr.Pradipta Satpathy, ASC, DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 14.05.2025 FIR/P.R. No. 208 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 28.03.2025 Buguda G.R. Case No.198 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Buguda Sections- 69, 89, 318 (4), 96, 115 (2),74, 75, 351(2),3(5) the of BNS, 2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Buguda P.S. Case No.208 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.198 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Buguda, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections- Sections- 69, 89, 318 (4), 96, 115(2), 74, 75, Page 1 of 6 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 38.03.2025, the informant lodged a written report before IIC, Buguda P.S. alleging therein that eight years back the Petitioner called the informant to his house and kept physical relationship with her despite protest. For the assurance to marry her, he kept repeated physical relationship with her. For such physical intimacy, the informant got conceived for three months and the Petitioner aborted her pregnancy without her consent. It is also alleged that the accused-Petitioner had taken cash of Rs.l5 lakhs from the informant. It is also stated by the informant that the said amount was taken by her as loan from a private group and also borrowed from other persons to satisfy the demand of the accused/ Petitioner. The accused/Petitioner took lakhs of rupees from the victim on the assurance of marriage. The accused/Petitioner used to call the victim to his house and she had gone with the accused/Petitioner at various times to Polasara, Berhampur and Puri and spent night with him in different lodges. Despite assuring her to marry and after taking money from her, the accused/Petitioner did not marry her. When the victim made a complaint before Kula Samaj on 28.03.2025, the accused/Petitioner called the victim to his village. Accordingly, at 12.10 PM, she reached the Petitioner’s house. Page 2 of 6 However, the accused/Petitioner’s mother, his brother, aunt, cousin sister and two unknown persons came there and assaulted her. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is no way involved in the alleged crime. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the exclusive possession of the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner and the victim have love relationship with each other, no such act has been committed by the Petitioner to commit such acts by applying force. But only to put the Petitioner in trouble and put him behind the bar, such a false case has been foisted against the present Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2025. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the Informant vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the present Petitioner in view of the nature of allegations alleged against the Petitioner. He further submits that as per the statement of the complainant /victim recorded under Section-180 of the BNSS as well as under Section-183 of the BNSS and the statements of the witnesses named, Damayanti Swain, Khali Pradhan, Papina Sethi, Saluta Pradhan, Prabhasini Sahu and Milan Pradhan as well as upon perusal of the seizure list and medical examination Page 3 of 6 report of the victim as well as that of the accused of this case, the prima facie involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged offences is clearly made out. Hence, in view of the serious nature of allegations, the Petitioner need not be released on bail. 7. This Court is aware that not every failed relationship gives rise to a criminal offence. However, the allegations in the present case point toward a situation where the consent was not freely given, but was secured under a misrepresentation that went to the very root of the complainant’s decision-making. At this stage, the conduct attributed to the petitioner does not reflect a mere change of heart or mutual misunderstanding but prima facie indicates deliberate deceit. 8. In the case of Manoj Kumar Munda v. State of Odisha and Anr.1, this Court had the occasion to consider the issue of consent to sexual relations obtained under a false promise of marriage. While the Court ultimately did not accept the complainant’s contention in that case, it nonetheless underscored important observations regarding the nature of consent in such circumstances: “41. Yet, the realities of society cannot be ignored, nor can the law afford to be blind to the conditions in which it operates. In the vast expanse of this nation, there exist women reared in conservatism, sheltered 1 CRLMC No.4485 of 2024. Page 4 of 6 from the world, their choices shaped not by unfettered will but by the narrow confines of tradition. For them, consent may not always be an act of true volition, but rather a submission to circumstance, to pressure, to the unspoken weight of expectation. 42. Thus, this reasoning must not be wielded as a sword where it was meant to be a shield. It must not become a tool of exploitation, allowing men to feign love, deceive the trusting, and abandon them to dishonor. The law must tread with vigilance and make sure that principle does not become pretext for abuse.” 9. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.2 dealt with the nature of consent in such cases and held as follows: “16. Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. The “consent” of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a “misconception of fact” where such misconception was the basis of her choosing to engage in the said act..” 10. The impact of such an allegation is not merely legal. It carries emotional and psychological consequences for the survivor. Granting bail prematurely, especially when the investigation is still unfolding or when there is risk of pressure 2 (2021) 18 SCC 517. Page 5 of 6 being exerted, may undermine the process of justice. The nature and gravity of the allegation, coupled with the potential for witness influence, weigh against the petitioner. 11. In view of the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed. Sumitra Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-May-2025 13:19:51 Page 6 of 6