Orissa High Court

Pranaya Kumar Podha vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 5 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 BLAPL No.3222 OF 2025

              Pranaya Kumar Podha                ....              Petitioner
                                              Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, Adv.
                                            -versus-
              State of Odisha                    ....         Opposite Party
                                                      Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

                             CORAM:
                             DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.                                  ORDER
  01.                                     05.05.2025

      F.I.R. Dated     Police           Case No. and           Sections
      No.             Station           Courts' Name
      0065 27.02.2025 Laikera        C.T. Case No.382 of Sections
                                     2025 arising out of 69/351(2)/3(5) of the
                                     Laikera P.S. Case of the BNS
                                     No.65     of    2025
                                     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 Petitioner and learned counsel

            for the State.




                                                                  Page 1 of 7
 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with C.T. Case

  No.382 of 2025 arising out of Laikera P.S. Case No.65 of 2025

  pending in the court of          learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda,

  registered for the alleged commission of offences under

  Sections 69/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, has filed this petition for his

  release on bail.

4. The prosecution story in brief is that one Complainant/victim

  appeared at P.S. and reported in writing alleging therein that

  since last 7 years she has love affair with one Pranaya Kumar

  Podha, S/o-Khirod Podha of her village. Pranaya Kumar Podha

  repeated consensual physical intimacy with victim under the

  assurance of marriage. However, over the last one month,

  Pranaya has detached contact and denied to marry her. On

  21.02.2025, Pranaya's elder sisters namely Lili Bhanj and Jhili

  Gandha also threatened her and insulted her in the locality.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no

  credible or incriminating material on record to connect him to

  the alleged offenses. The petitioner has been in custody since

  28.02.2025. 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.




                                                         Page 2 of 7
 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

  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


                                                            Page 3 of 7
   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/

  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.


                                                           Page 4 of 7
             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.