Orissa High Court

Mohan Nahak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 1 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              BLAPL No.2808 OF 2025
              Mohan Nahak                   ....               Petitioner
                                            Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo,
                                                               Advocate
                                       -versus-
              State of Odisha               ....          Opposite Party
                                                 Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC

                             CORAM:
                             DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.                                 ORDER
  01.                                    01.05.2025

      F.I.R.   Dated     Police    Case No. and          Sections
      No.               Station    Courts' Name
      98     05.02.2025 Rambha G.R. Case No.269 Section 69 of the
                                of 2025 pending in BNS, 2023
                                the     court    of
                                learned    J.M.F.C.,
                                Khallikote


        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 Rambha P.S.

            Case No.98 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.269 of 2025

            pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote

            registered for the alleged commission of offences under




                                                                 Page 1 of 6
   Sections 69 of the of the I.P.C., has filed this petition for his

  release on bail.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the informant reported the

  matter before the police station with an allegation that since

  last two years, the petitioner had developed the love

  relationship with the informant. Thereafter, it is alleged that

  with the assurance of marriage, the petitioner on 22.08.2024

  kept the physical relationship with the informant and

  thereafter again on 31.01.2025, the petitioner called to the

  informant to go to Rourkela and accordingly the informant

  came with the petitioner with the believe that the petitioner

  will marry to the informant. It is further alleged that the

  petitioner subsequently married to the informant in a temple

  and kept physical relationship. Thereafter, it is further alleged

  that the petitioner on 04.02.2025, left the informant near the

  village of the informant with all the luggage and fled away

  from the spot, but the informant searched the petitioner for

  some time and that was in vain.

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 languishing

  in custody since 06.02.2025. In light of these facts, the counsel



                                                         Page 2 of 6
   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 accused of serious

  and heinous offenses. Given the egregious nature of the

  allegations and the potential for evidence tampering, the State

  strongly opposes the 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 recognizes 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.

                                                            Page 3 of 6
 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.

                                                            Page 4 of 6
             ...

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 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

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.