Orissa High Court

Hemanta Sahu vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 14 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              BLAPL No. 4656 OF 2025
              Hemanta Sahu                   ....               Petitioner
                                       Mr. Biswajit Ranjan Tripathy, Adv.
                                        -versus-
              State of Odisha                ....          Opposite Party
                                              Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC

                             CORAM:
                             DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.                                    ORDER
  02.                                       14.05.2025

      F.I.R.   Dated     Police    Case No. and          Sections
      No.               Station   Courts' Name
      202    17.08.2020 Deogarh S.T. Case No.32 of Sections-341/323/
                                2020 pending in 376(2)/506 of the
                                the    court    of IPC.
                                learned      Addl.
                                Sessions    Judge,
                                Deogarh

        1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

        2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel

            for the State.

        3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Deogarh

            P.S. Case No.202 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Case No.32 of

            2020 pending in the court of        learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

            Deogarh, registered for the alleged commission of offences

            under Sections-341/323/ 376(2)/506 of the IPC, has filed this

            petition for his release on bail.

                                                                    Page 1 of 6
 4. The brief fact, in nutshell is that on 16.08.2020, the victim had

  gone to the nearby paddy field to uproot grasses at a distance

  of one kilometre from her house. At about 11.30 A.M, while the

  victim was returning to her house on the way, the accused had

  concealed near the mango orchard, assaulted her by Kendu

  stick, dragged her forcefully and committed rape on her. After

  committing rape, the accused threatened the informant not to

  disclose the matter to anybody otherwise he will kill her.

  Hence, this case.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that till now

  eight charge-sheeted witnesses have already been examined

  including the victim i.e. P.W.3. The victim in her deposition

  before the Court has categorically stated that she was in love

  relationship with the Petitioner and she had kept physical

  relationship several times with the Petitioner. He further

  submits that out of grudge and ill intention the victim was

  foisted a false case against the Petitioner in order to harass him.

  He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since

  19.08.2020. Therefore, he submits that the Petitioner may be

  enlarged on bail.

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

  established a physical relationship with the victim under false

  assurances of marriage, thereby causing her grave humiliation

                                                           Page 2 of 6
   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

  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

                                                            Page 3 of 6
 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 (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, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying the land for plantation.