Orissa High Court

Swopna Dalai 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. 2166 OF 2025
              Swopna Dalai                      ....             Petitioner
                                               Mr. Ashok Kumar Patro, Adv.

                                            -versus-

              State of Odisha                   ....         Opposite Party
                                                 Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC

                             CORAM:
                             DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.                                  ORDER
  03.                                     15.05.2025

      F.I.R. Dated     Police    Case No. and          Sections
      No.             Station    Courts' Name
      0002 07.01.2025 Ramgiri G.R. Case No.11 of Sections-
                              2025 arising out of 363/376(2)(n)/323
                              P.S. Case No.02 of /506/34 of I.P.C.
                              2025 pending in the
                              court of    learned
                              J.M.F.C., Ramgiri

        1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

        2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel

            for the State.




                                                                  Page 1 of 7
 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with G.R. Case

  No.11 of 2025 arising out of P.S. Case No.02 of 2025 pending in

  the court of       learned J.M.F.C., Ramgiri, registered for the

  alleged     commission       of    offences    under      Sections

  363/376(2)(n)/323/506/34 of I.P.C., has filed this petition for his

  release on bail.

4. The prosecution case as reveals from the F.I.R. lodged by the

  victim-prosecutrix before the Officer-in-Charge of R.Udayagiri

  P.S. on 07-01-2025, in short, is that on 10.05.2024 at about 7 p.m.

  when the victim had been to the backside of her house to

  attend the call of nature, the accused abducted her and kept her

  in a house at Udayagiri Arati Sahi for one month. During that

  period, he had committed rape on the victim. But, somehow

  the victim escaped from there and went to her maternal uncle's

  house. Thereafter, she disclosed about the incident before her

  parents and uncle. The matter was also informed to the village

  gentries and a village meeting was held, wherein, the accused

  was asked to marry the victim girl. On 05.01.2025, on call of the

  accused, the victim girl had gone to his house, where the

  mother and sister of the accused abused the victim and

  assaulted her. They also threatened the victim of dire

  consequence.

                                                           Page 2 of 7
 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no

  credible or incriminating material on record to connect the

  Petitioner to the alleged offenses. The petitioner has been

  languishing in custody since 08.01.2025. 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 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,

                                                           Page 3 of 7
   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

  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



                                                          Page 4 of 7
   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 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.