Orissa High Court

Sahil Mahammad 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. 3253 of 2025

                                  Sahil Mahammad                            ........   Petitioner(s)
                                                                   Mr. Prasanta Kumar Routray, Adv.
                                                        -Versus-
                                  State of Odisha                     ..........      Opposite Party(s)
                                                                      Ms. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, ASC
                                             CORAM:
                                             DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                                                        ORDER

05.05.2025 Order No.

01.

                                  FIR    Dated      Police  Case No.          Sections
                                                    Station and
                                  No.
                                                            Courts'
                                                            Name
                                  46     28.02.2025 Nuapada C.T. Case         Sections
                                                            No.138 of         191(2)/64(2)(m)/115(2)/
                                                            2025              296/351(2)/3(5)      of
                                                            pending           BNS, 2023
                                                            in     the
                                                            court of
                                                            learned
                                                            S.D.J.M.,
                                                            Nuapada

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

Designation: Personal Assistant

3. The Petitioner being in custody in Nuapada P.S. Case No. 46

of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.138 of 2025, pending in

the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada , registered for the

alleged commission of offences under Sections

191(2)/64(2)(m)/115(2)/296/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, has filed

this petition for his release on bail.

4. The prosecution case is that since 03.10.2024 till the date of

lodging of the FIR the petitioner has committed sexual

intercourse with the victim girl repeatedly giving assurance of

marriage and when the victim asked him for marriage, he

abused her and threatened to do away with her life. It is also

alleged that the petitioner has taken cash of Rs.50,000/- from the

victim. 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

01.03.2025. 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

Designation: Personal Assistant

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

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.

Designation: Personal Assistant

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.

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.

Designation: Personal Assistant

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 (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.