Orissa High Court

Sashikanta Mohanty @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 15 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              BLAPL No. 2312 OF 2025
              Sashikanta Mohanty @           ....               Petitioner
              Sashikanta Mohanty @
              Pintu
                                       Mr. Anugraha Narayan Samantray,
                                                                     Adv.
                                        -versus-
              State of Odisha                ....         Opposite Party
                                              Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC

                             CORAM:
                             DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.                                 ORDER
  02.                                    15.05.2025

      F.I.R.   Dated     Police Case No. and Courts'          Sections
      No.               Station         Name
      04     07.01.2025 Salepur Spl. G.R. Case No.05      Sections-75/77/
                                of 2025 pending in the    351(2) of the
                                court of      learned     B.N.S.,   2023
                                Addl. District Judge-     and read with
                                cum-Special     Court     Sections-8 &17
                                under POCSO Act,          of the POCSO
                                Cuttack                   Act.

        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 Salepur P.S.

            Case No.04 of 2025 corresponding to Spl. G.R. Case No.05 of

            2025 pending in the court of    learned Addl. District Judge-


                                                                 Page 1 of 6
   cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack, registered for

  the alleged commission of offences under Sections-75/77/ 351(2)

  of the B.N.S., 2023 and read with Sections- 8 &17 of the POCSO

  Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

4. The brief fact, in nutshell, is that one Umakanta Behera

  (Informant) lodged a written report before the IIC, Salepur P.S.

  alleging therein that on 07.01.2025 at about 12.05 A.M., his

  brother-in-law's son is the present Petitioner regularly visited

  the house of the victim. On the last June, 2024, the present

  Petitioner brought one of his friend nameD Sashikanta

  Mohanty @ Pintu to his house. Then they took his daughter to

  visit Bhubaneswar and there they stayed in the rented room

  situated at Bhubaneswar, where Sashikanta kissed her

  daughter forcibly and kept sexual relationship with his minor

  daughter who is aged about 17 years. Now they are threatening

  to his minor daughter to viral the video in the social media.

  Hence, this case.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

  Petitioner is not at all involved in the alleged crime. The victim

  also specifically stated in her statement that she has no physical

  relationship with the Petitioner and another. So, the offence

  under Section-376 of the IPC as alleged is not made out against

  the Petitioner. He further submits that out of grudge and ill

  intention with the family of the victim and the Petitioner and

  another, the father of the victim has foisted a false case against

                                                          Page 2 of 6
   the Petitioner and another in order to harass them. He further

  submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 08.01.2025.

  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 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

  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

                                                           Page 3 of 6
   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.

           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


                                                            Page 4 of 6
             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 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.