Orissa High Court
Debaswarup Sahu vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 5 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 3251 of 2025
Debaswarup Sahu ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Subodh Kumar Mohanty, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party(s)
Ms. J. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
05.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. Sections
Station and Courts'
No.
Name
73 4.3.2025 Laikera C.T. Case Sections
No.420 of 69 of BNS,
2025 2023.
pending in
the court of
learned
S.D.J.M.,
Jharsuguda
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Laikera P.S. Case No. 73 of
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31
2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.420 of 2025, pending in the
court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda, registered for the
alleged commission of offences under Sections 69 of the BNS,
2023, has filed this petition for his release on bail.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner and the
victim were in love relationship for 11 years. The petitioner kept
physical relationship with the victim several times on false
assurance of marriage. On 03.03.2025, when the victim came to
know that the petitioner is going to marry, she asked him about
the matter over phone to which the accused replied that he is
going to marry other and he will not marry to her. 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
07.03.2025. 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
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
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31
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
Munda -vrs. State of Odisha & Anr.) wherein the Petitioner/
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31
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
Designation: Personal Assistant 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.
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
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication Authority shall assist the Petitioner in identifying the location
Location: OHC
Date: 15-May-2025 19:47:31
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.
13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
Designation: Personal Assistant
