The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 13507 of 2025 Syed Reyan Ahmed State of Odisha -versus- ..…... Petitioner(s) Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv. Md. Arshad Raza Khan, Adv. Mr. Jagadip Sahoo, Adv. .….... Opposite Party Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 24.12.2025 Order No. 01 Dated F.I.R. No. Police Station Sections Case No. and Courts’ Name 508 16.10.2025 Info City C.T. Case of No.1794 2025 pending in the court of J.M.F.C. (Cog. Taking)-2, Bhubaneswa r Sections 64(2)(m)/318(2), 316(2),296.115(2 ),351(2) BNS Sec 66(C) IT ACT 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Dec-2025 14:13:08 2 3. The Petitioner is presently languishing in judicial custody in connection with Infocity Police Station Case No. 508 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 1794 of 2025, now pending adjudication before the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (Cognizance-Taking)-II, Bhubaneswar. The prosecution alleges the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 318(2), 316(2), 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Assailing the continued curtailment of his personal liberty and invoking the constitutional guarantee
Legal Reasoning
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present application, praying for enlargement on bail pending trial. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim is a student of Computer Science at KIIT, Bhubaneswar. It is alleged that in the year 2023, she became acquainted with the Petitioner, both being natives of Kolkata, and that the said acquaintance gradually evolved into a friendship, accompanied by the exchange of mobile numbers. It is the prosecution’s case that on one such occasion, the Petitioner unlawfully gained access to the victim’s mobile handset and surreptitiously tampered with certain mobile applications, as a consequence of that monetary transactions effected through the Petitioner’s handset were allegedly debited Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Dec-2025 14:13:08 3 from the victim’s bank account, resulting in wrongful pecuniary gain to the Petitioner without the knowledge or consent of the victim. 5. It is further alleged that on 15.07.2025, the Petitioner took the victim to a nearby restaurant and thereafter to a hotel room, where he demanded sexual favours. Upon the victim’s refusal, he is stated to have left the premises. The prosecution further alleges that subsequent to such refusal, the Petitioner persisted in making sexually coloured remarks. Thereafter, it is alleged that the Petitioner tendered an apology and induced the victim to accompany him to a hotel guest house, where he again reiterated his demand for sexual favours. It is alleged that the cumulative effect of such conduct caused the victim to suffer psychological trauma, necessitating her admission to KIIMS Hospital for medical care. 6. The prosecution further asserts that despite the alleged sexual and financial exploitation, the victim was initially unable to disclose the incidents to her parents. It is alleged that on 12.09.2025, the Petitioner again took the victim to a hotel and offered her a different kind of chocolate, following the consumption of which she allegedly became quiescent. It is further alleged that the Petitioner proposed religious conversion and sought her consent for marriage, and upon her refusal, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Dec-2025 14:13:08 4 forcibly committed sexual assault. It is also alleged that the Petitioner threatened to circulate obscene and inappropriate photographs of the victim. 7. Ultimately, the victim is stated to have confided in her mother, who brought her back to Kolkata on 15.09.2025. Thereafter, on 14.11.2025, the victim was again admitted to KIIMS Hospital for treatment for trauma, during which period she disclosed the alleged incidents to her parents and, acting upon their advice, lodged a written complaint before the authorities of KIIT. Pursuant to the registration of the case, the Petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the Court on 11.11.2025, giving rise to the present proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that both the Petitioner and the victim are students of KIIT University and have been acquainted with each other since the year 2023. It is contended that the relationship between them was consensual and stemmed from a mutual romantic association, and that owing to subsequent misunderstandings and breakdown of relations, the present FIR has come to be lodged. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 11.11.2025, and that his continued incarceration is neither imperative for the purposes of investigation nor justified by any compelling Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Dec-2025 14:13:08 5 necessity. He further submits that his custody is impeding his studies and will hamper the ensuing examination as he is a student. On these premises, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and enlarge the Petitioner on bail, on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit in the interests of justice. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State, opposing the prayer for bail, submits that the accusation of rape is not a mere bald allegation but is fortified by the materials collected during investigation, including the statement of the victim and other corroborative circumstances. It is further submitted that the conduct attributed to the Petitioner discloses a pattern of exploitation and abuse of dominance, and that the allegations are of a grave and serious nature, striking at the bodily integrity and dignity of the victim. 11. Learned counsel for the state further contends that the record reflects an attempt on the part of the Petitioner to exert undue influence upon the victim by proposing and pressurizing her to embrace Islam, which, according to the prosecution, forms part of the continuum of coercive conduct. Emphasizing the seriousness of the offences alleged and the potential impact on the victim, learned counsel for the State urges that this is not a fit case for exercise of the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Dec-2025 14:13:08 6 Petitioner and accordingly prays for rejection of the bail application. 12. Without venturing into the merits of the allegations of the evidentiary material at this stage, and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case, this Court remains guided by the well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that grant of bail is the norm and refusal an exception, subject always to the peculiar facts of each case, the nature and gravity of the accusations, and the overarching necessity of securing the ends of justice while ensuring a fair and unimpeded trial. In a catena of judicial pronouncements, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, it has been authoritatively reiterated that the primary object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial, and that pre-trial incarceration must not be permitted to assume the character of punitive detention, in derogation of the fundamental presumption of innocence. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in NikeshTarachand Shah v. Union of India going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab in 1 2018 (3) SCC 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Dec-2025 14:13:08 7 which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson5 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.” liberal 13. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and bearing in mind the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continued pre-trial incarceration of the Petitioner is not warranted and that the ends of justice would be adequately subserved by his enlargement on bail. Accordingly, the Petitioner shall be released on bail by the learned court in seisin of the matter upon furnishing cash security of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with two local solvent sureties, each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, subject to the following conditions, which are imposed to ensure the integrity of the trial and the administration of criminal justice: (i) The Petitioner shall remain present before the learned trial court on each and every date fixed for hearing, unless his personal appearance is dispensed with in accordance with law. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Dec-2025 14:13:08 8 (ii) The Petitioner shall maintain good conduct and shall not commit any offence of a similar nature or otherwise during the pendency of the trial. (iii) The Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any attempt to tamper with the evidence, influence the course of investigation or trial, or intimidate, induce, or interfere with the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever. (iv) The Petitioner shall cooperate with the trial and shall not adopt any dilatory tactics calculated to impede the expeditious conclusion of the proceedings. (v) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail, and the learned court below shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Decision
14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge Murmu ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Dec-2025 14:13:08