Orissa High Court

Chakradhar Naik vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 5 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                                                       Signature Not Verified
                                                                       Digitally Signed
                                                                       Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                       Reason: Authentication
                                                                       Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                       Date: 15-May-2025 19:08:17




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                      BLAPL No.3238 of 2025
                 Chakradhar Naik                               ........  Petitioner (s)
                                                    Mr. Pranab Kumar Samantray, Adv.
                                         -Versus-
                 State of Odisha                       ..........      Opposite Party
                                                         Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA

                            CORAM:
                            DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                                        ORDER

05.05.2025 Order No.

01.


            F.I.R   Dated          Police Station    Case No. and Sections
            No.                                      Courts' Name

            92      26.02.2025     Barkote           C.T Case No.91 of      Sections
                                                     2025 pending in        420/
                                                     the    Court   of      376(2)/(n)/
                                                     learned J.M.F.C.,      313/ 506 of
                                                     Barkote                the I.P.C.

1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.

2. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Barkote

P.S. Case No.92 of 2025, C.T Case No.91 of 2025 pending in the

Court of learned J.M.F.C., Barkote for the alleged commission of

offences under 420/ 376(2)/(n)/ 313/ 506 of the I.P.C., has filed this

petition seeking for his release on bail.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

3. The brief fact of the case is the victim was working in a private

hospital at Cuttack. On 21.11.2021 she had been to her village-

Jharabahal to attend her father's funeral and on that occasion the

Petitioner took the mobile number of victim. Subsequently, he

contacted the victim and persuaded her to come Deogarh. He also

took rupees seven lakh from the victim with an assurance to

provide her job at Deogarh. It is also alleged that the Petitioner

called the victim to Deogarh, took her to Mamata lodge, gave her

some drugs with cold drinks, committed rape on her and took her

nude photographs. The Petitioner also kept physical relation with

the victim multiple times by blackmailing her to make her nude

photos viral. When the victim became pregnant, the Petitioner

gave medicine to the victim to abort her pregnancy and also

denied to marry her. Hence, this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is

no way involved in commission of offences alleged. He further

submits that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his

family and due to his detention inside the custody, his family

members are suffering a lot. There is also no chance of tampering

with the prosecution evidence as investigation has progressed

substantially. Moreover, the Petitioner is in custody since

28.02.2025. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged

on bail.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

5. 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.

6. 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

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

prejudice. Each case must therefore turn on its own facts, and

courts must tread cautiously in drawing inferences at the pre-trial

stage.

7. 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

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

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."

8. 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 (during June, 2025 to August, 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,

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying the land for plantation.