Sanjay Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3911 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sanjay Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 27 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                              BLAPL No. 2416 of 2026

                              Sanjay Kumar Jena                          ........    Petitioner(s)
                                                                         Mr. Sitakanta Hota, Adv.
                                                      -Versus-
                              State of Odisha                     ..........     Opposite Party(s)
                                                                    Mr. Raj Bhushan Das, ASC

                                           CORAM:
                                           DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                      ORDER

27.04.2026 Order No.

01.

                              FIR       Dated       Police  Case      No.      Sections
                                                    Station and Courts'
                              No.
                                                            Name
                              07        06.01.2026 Nayagarh G.R.    Case       Sections
                                                            No.20      of      64(2)(m)/
                                                            2026               115(2) /
                                                            pending in         351(2)/3(5)
                                                            the court of       of       the
                                                            learned            BNS Act.
                                                            S.D.J.M.,
                                                            Nayagarh

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner being in custody in Nayagarh P.S. Case No. 07

the court of learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh , registered for the

alleged commission of offences under Sections 64(2)(m)/

115(2) / 351(2)/3(5) of the BNS Act, has filed this petition for

his release on bail.

4. The brief fact of the case is that since 2025, the informant and

the Petitioner both were working at Nabfins Ltd. Micro

Finance Co. at Sunakhala. From that day, the Petitioner had

one sided love with the informant and forcibly kept sexual

relationship with the victim by giving false marriage

assurance. When the informant opposed the accused, he had

tortured her mentally and physically. On 09.08.2025, he

assaulted the informant by means of fist and kick blows, and

also sexually harassed her. On 21.12.2025, while the

informant went to the house of Petitioner at

Kurumabankatara to inform his father and mother, the

accused assaulted her. Hence, she lodged the FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no

specific allegation against the Petitioner and he has no

connection with the offences as alleged by the prosecution. It

is further contended that there is no criminal antecedent

against the present Petitioner. The petitioner has been in

custody since 19.02.2026. Hence, it is prayed that the

Petitioner may be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that

the materials on record clearly disclosed a prima facie case

against the Petitioner for commission of alleged offence. The

Petitioner has forcibly committed rape on her. In view of the

egregious nature of the allegations and the likelihood of

tampering with evidence, the State strongly objects to the

grant of bail.

7. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the

character of the evidence appearing against the Petitioner,

and the stringent punishment prescribed for the offences

alleged, this Court finds that it is not possible at this stage to

record any reasonable grounds for believing that the

petitioner is not guilty of the offences or that he is unlikely to

commit any such offence while on bail. Accordingly, the

prayer for bail is devoid of merit and stands rejected.

8. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed.

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu