Orissa High Court

Rajendra Dalai vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 30 April, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              BLAPL No.2664 OF 2025

            Rajendra Dalai                   ....               Petitioner
                                        Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Adv.
                                        -versus-
            State of Odisha                  ....         Opposite Party
                                              Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC

                       CORAM:
                       DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.                               ORDER
  01.                                  30.04.2025

      F.I.R. Dated     Police    Case No. and            Sections
      No.             Station    Courts' Name
      0173 12.09.2021 Mohana S.T. Case No.88 of Sections 376(1)/376
                              2024 arising out of (2)(n) of the of the
                              G.R.           Case I.P.C.
                              No.206/2021
                              corresponding to
                              Mohana P.S. Case
                              No.173 of 2021
                              pending in the
                              court of    learned
                              Additional
                              Sessions     Judge,
                              Paralakhemundi

        1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.



                                                                 Page 1 of 7
 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel

  for the State.

3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with S.T. Case

  No.88 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.206/2021

  corresponding to Mohana P.S. Case No.173 of 2021 pending in

  the    court     of   learned     Additional   Sessions      Judge,

  Paralakhemundi, registered for the alleged commission of

  offences under Sections 376(1)/376 (2)(n) of the of the I.P.C., has

  filed this petition for his release on bail.

4. On12.09.2021 at 10.45 P.M., the victim lodged an F.I.R. before

  the Mohana Police Station to the effect that seven months back,

  she came to her aunt's home at village Jubagaon under Mohana

  P.S. She came in contact with the Petitioner who is from the

  same village and love relation was developed in between them.

  Later, she went to Bhubaneswar for labour work for her

  livelihood. After ten days, Rajendra/Petitioner went there and

  took her to Ganesh Nagar, Hyderabad and several times he

  kept physical relation with her by assuring to marry her.

  Thereafter, they both came to Jubagaon and stayed there for

  two days as husband and wife. Then again he took her to

  Sikenderabad and fled away somewhere by leaving her alone.

  Now she is pregnant of three months. During course of


                                                            Page 2 of 7
   investigation, the I.O. visited the spot and examined the victim

  and other witnesses and recorded their statement under

  Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The victim has sent immediately to the

  CHC,    Mohana     for     examination.   After   closer    of    the

  investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet vide C.S.

  No.257 dated 10.11.2021 under Section 376(2)(n) showing the

  Petitioner as absconder.

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

  since 30.08.2024, and the charge sheet was filed on 10.11.2021.

  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 accused of serious

  and heinous offenses. It is submitted that the petitioner

  established a physical relationship with the victim under false

  assurances of marriage, illegally recorded explicit videos of her

  without consent, and circulated the same on social media,

  thereby causing her grave humiliation and distress. Given the


                                                             Page 3 of 7
   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.

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


                                                            Page 4 of 7
 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.
         ...

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, 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.