The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.13536 of 2024 Rohit Kumar Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr.Manas Kumar Chand State of Odisha -versus- ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr.Anshuman Sethy, A.S.C. Mr.Gopal Krushna Mohanty, Adv. for Informant CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 16.04.2025 Order No. 04. 1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. with a prayer to release the Petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in connection with Deogarh P.S. Case No.564 of 2024 which corresponds to C.T. Case No.1137 of 2024 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh. The said case was registered for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 493, 294, 323, 506/34 of I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story, as has been narrated in the F.I.R., Page 1 of 7. in short, is that the informant came to know the Petitioner through an Odia Matrimonial Website on 19.02.2021. Thereafter, their relationship developed and the Petitioner was visiting the residence of the informant. Eventually, as more intimacy developed between the Petitioner and the Informant, they visited many places. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the Petitioner forced the informant to have a sexual intercourse with the Petitioner on 29.06.2021. Thereafter, under threat the Petitioner continued to have physical relationship with the informant and on several occasions he had a sexual intercourse with the informant against her consent and will. It has also been alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the Petitioner forced the informant to have sexual relationship with him. Eventually, the marriage of the informant was fixed with another person and the same was performed on 14.07.2021. After her marriage, the informant was threatened by the Petitioner not to have any physical relationship with her husband. Finally, at the instance of the present Petitioner, the informant abandoned her husband and came back to her parental house. The informant has also alleged that the Petitioner, by giving her assurance of marriage, kept physical and sexual relationship forcibly against her will. On 08.11.2024, while the informant was staying in a rented house, the Petitioner went to her house and again by giving her a false promise to marry, forcibly kept physical relationship with her. Next day, when the informant went to the house of the Petitioner, she was abused and assaulted by the Petitioner and Page 2 of 7. his family members. Thereafter, the Petitioner started threatening the informant. As a result, the informant, apprehending danger to her life, has lodged this F.I.R.
Legal Reasoning
conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the event he is released on pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground of the gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He further submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the informant-lady was subjected to mental & physical harassment and that she was forced to have a sexual relationship with the Petitioner, the offences alleged against the Petitioner are well made out. Learned counsel for the State, in course of his argument, referred to the statement of the informant-victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. and contended that the informant-victim has vividly narrated the mental and physical torture she has forced at the instance of the Petitioner. Further, the statement of the victim clearly reveals that the Petitioner forced the informant to have a sexual relationship with him against her will and consent. She has also alleged that the Petitioner blackmailed the informant by stating to her that unless she keeps physical relationship with the present Petitioner, the Petitioner would release their intimate photographs and videos on social media. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail as the same would affect the investigation work as well as the outcome of the trial. Page 4 of 7. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant also objected to the release of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the Informant at the outset contended that the nature of the crime committed by the Petitioner is heinous in nature. He further submitted that the informant, who is an innocent lady, has been subjected to sexual exploitation against her consent and will at the instance of the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Informant, further referring to the materials on record submitted before this Court that a case under Section 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. is well made out against the present Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on pre-arrest bail. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Informant further submitted that the Petitioner has been threatening the informant. As a result, the informant has already made a couple of attempts to commit suicide. Furthermore, the informant is also apprehending danger to her life. He further submitted that taking into consideration the seriousness and gravity of the allegation and the materials already collected during investigation, the Petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is liable to be rejected. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful scrutiny of the case diary as well as the materials on record, this Court observes that although the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution as the Medical Officer, who had conducted examination on the Page 5 of 7. victim, has clearly opined that there is no sign of recent sexual intercourse. However, this Court cannot simply brush aside the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. On a careful reading of the statement of the victim, this Court observes that the same depicts the story of a girl who has been subjected to sexual exploitation on the pretext the marriage. Moreover, the informant-victim has categorically stated that the Petitioner was keeping physical relationship with her under threat and without the consent and will of the informant. 8. On a careful analysis of the prosecution case as well as materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present case is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the Page 6 of 7. materials on record. 9. Case Diary & Other Materials be made available to the concerned courts. Records be transmitted to the higher forum at the cost of the Petitioner, if applied for.
Arguments
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Party and learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the case diary as well as other relevant materials on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the informant. He further contended that on the basis of the allegation made in the F.I.R., no case under Section 376(2)(n) is made out against the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the relationship between the Petitioner and the informant was consensual and, later on, when the marriage did not take place, the informant has lodged this F.I.R. to harass the Petitioner and to force the Petitioner to marry her. He further contended that the informant is a married lady, aged about 32 years. Therefore, she was conscious of what she was doing and the nature of the relationship she was having with the Petitioner. Since, the family of the Petitioner did not agree for the marriage, the informant has falsely implicated the present Petitioner and his family members in the present case. He further submitted that the present Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and that he is ready and willing to abide by any stringent terms and Page 3 of 7.
Decision
10. The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 7 of 7. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Apr-2025 17:54:17