Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 20 September, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 8329 of 2025
Manoj Kumar .... Petitioner
Moharana
Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Ms. R. Rajgarhia, Advocate
(Informant)
ABLAPL No. 8481 of 2025
Manoj Moharana .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Sharma, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Ms. R. Rajgarhia, Advocate
(Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
20.09.2025
Order No.
04. 1. Since both the ABLAPLs relate to the same
FIR, on the consent of the parties, they are taken up
together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner
in ABLAPL No.8329 of 2025 and learned counsel for
the State as well as Informant.
3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with G.R. Case No.1729 of 2025 pending
on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Rourkela arising out of
Chhend P.S. Case No.156 of 2025 for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 69 of BNS.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
that from the recital of the FIR, it is ex facie borne
out that it is a clear case of consent and even if the
entire allegations in the FIR are accepted at its face
value no offence under Section 69 of BNS is made
out.
5. To fortify his submission, learned Senior
Counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Jaspal Singh Kaural vrs. State of NCT
of Delhi and another reported in (2025) 5 SCC
756 as well as in Jothiragawan vrs. State
Representated by the Inspector of Police and
another reported in 2025 SCC online SC 628.
6. Per contra the learned counsel for the
informant opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail.
7. It is submitted by her that consent was not
voluntary and the Petitioner was duped and the mens
rea was apparent from inception. As such, the
Petitioner ought not to be protected by pre-arrest
bail.
8. Learned counsel for the State also opposes the
prayer for pre-arrest bail.
9. On consideration of the factual matrix in the
case at hand, this Court is persuaded to hold that the
judgments relied upon have no relevance.
10. This Court perused the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 of BNSS.
11. Taking into account the tenor thereof, this
Court is not inclined to entertain the application for
pre-arrest bail. However, in the event the Petitioner
surrenders before the learned Court in seisin in the
aforesaid case and moves an application for his
release on bail, the same shall be considered on its
own merit.
12. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
13. So far as the ABLAPL in respect of the
Petitioner in ABLAPL No.8481 of 2025 is concerned, it
is submitted that in spite of the matter being listed
today the learned counsel on record has not
appeared.
14. Admittedly ABLAPL No.8481 of 2025 was filed
during the pendency of ABLAPL No.8329 of 2025.
This Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 adjourned
the matter to enable the learned counsel on record to
explain the circumstances under which this bail
application was filed. Since there is no appearance on
behalf of the learned counsels on record Mr.
Satyapada Sharma, Mr. S. Jena and Mr. R. Barik, this
Court left with no other alternative but to refer the
matter to the Bar Council of Odisha, who shall
independently examine the matter and take decision
in accordance with the provisions as contained in the
Advocates' Act.
15. The ABLAPL accordingly disposed of.
16. Registry is requested to send copy of this
order to the Secretary of Bar Council Odisha.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Jina
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 22-Sep-2025 19:43:44
