Orissa High Court
Cnr. Odhc010300972026 vs State Of Odisha on 5 August, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
ABLAPL/4828/2026
ODHC010300972026
2026:OHC:15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
CNR. ODHC010300972026
Satyabrata Ray .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B. Panda, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.
(Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Date of Hearing : 30.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 05.08.2026
V. Narasingh, J. Heard Mr. Rath, learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Panigrahi, learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr.
Das, learned Counsel for the Informant.
1.
The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with C.T. Case No.687 of 2026 pending
on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Chandikhole, arising
out of Badachana P.S. Case No.137 of 2026 for
commission of offences punishable under Sections
Page 1 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
691 and 351(3)2 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’).
2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner that a consensual relationship
between two consenting adults is being given the
colour of criminality and the Petitioner is cited as
an accused.
3. It is his further submission that on a bare
reading of the FIR, it is evident that there was a
proposal for marriage of the Petitioner with the
informant. It is alleged that since the same did not
fructify, the Petitioner has been falsely implicated
with the allegation of forceful physical exploitation
of the informant. And, it is stated that delay in
institution of FIR in the backdrop of nature of
allegation assumes significance.
1
69. Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.–
Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a
woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual
intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the
offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.–“deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false
promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing
identity.
2
351. Criminal intimidation.–(3) Whoever commits the offence of
criminal intimidation by threatening to cause death or grievous hurt,
or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an
offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to
impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or
with fine, or with both.
Page 2 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
4. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner, that the version of the informant in
the Section 1803 BNSS statement is completely at
variance with the FIR in as much as exaggerated
allegations have been made, which on the face of
it is highly improbable in as much as it is the stand
of the informant that forceful sexual act for the
first time took place on 07.12.2025 and thereafter,
it is alleged that the Petitioner had kept physical
relationship at four more places. Referring to the
sequence of events, it is submitted with
vehemence by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Rath assisted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel that
such stand of the informant-victim militates
against normal human conduct and any person of
prudence cannot accept such contention.
3
180. Examination of witnesses by police.–(1) Any police officer
making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not
below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special
order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer,
may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating
to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the
answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal
charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to
him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does
so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each
such person whose statement he records:
Provided that statement made under this sub-section may also be
recorded by audio-video electronic means:
Provided further that the statement of a woman against whom an
offence under Section 64, Section 65, Section 66, Section 67, Section
68, Section 69, Section 70, Section 71, Section 74, Section 75,
Section 76, Section 77, Section 78, Section 79 or Section 124 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or
attempted, shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman
officer.
Page 3 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
4-A. To fortify his submission, learned senior
counsel for the Petitioner, relied on the judgment
of the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Navratna v.
State of Chhattisgarh4, Manoj Kumar
Moharana vs. State of Odisha and another5,
order of the Patna High Court dated 21.05.2025 in
the case of Ankit Kumar Barnwal @ Ajay
Kumar vs. State of Bihar6 (and the order of the
Apex Court affirming the order so passed by the
Hon’ble Patna High Court) and order of the Apex
Court in the case of Praveen Manik Kadam vs.
State of Maharashtra and another7.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as
well as the informant oppose such prayer.
6. And, to fortify their submission, learned
counsel for the Informant relied on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Lok Mal @ Loku
vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh8, as well as that
of Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma
vs. State of Bihar and another9.
4
Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 154.
5
Manoj Kumar Moharana v. State of Odisha, 2026 Supreme (Ori) 732.
6
Ankit Kumar Barnwal @ Ajay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, Criminal
Miscellaneous No.33330 of 2025. (Patna HC)
7
Praveen Manik Kadam vs. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No.18345
of 2025. (SC)
8
Lok Mal @ Loku vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 344.
9
Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma vs. State of Bihar, (2007)
7 SCC 413.
Page 4 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
7. Learned counsel for the State relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of
Maharashtra10.
8. The allegation against the Petitioner is inter
alia under Section 691 of BNS. The said section
was introduced in the BNS, whereby sexual
intercourse with a woman by making a promise to
marry without any intention of fulfilling the same
is one of the ingredients of the offence.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that in the
backdrop of the marriage negotiations of the
Petitioner with the informant, the Petitioner called
her to meet him on 07.12.2025 and thereafter,
she was forcibly taken in his car to a lodge, where
he sexually abused her, on the assurance of
marriage. In her statement under Section 1803 of
BNSS, she has reiterated the incident and stated
that on subsequent dates, she was also forced to
have a physical relationship with him.
10. It is submitted that since all along she had
the hope that she would join the Petitioner in
matrimony and because the Petitioner threatened
her that he had made videos of their intimate
10
Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18
SCC 191.
Page 5 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
moments, she had to succumb to the sexual abuse
of the Petitioner.
11. Such a stand has been reiterated in her
statement under Section 18311 of BNSS.
11
183. Recording of confessions and statements.–(1) Any
Magistrate of the District in which the information about commission
of any offence has been registered, may, whether or not he has
jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to
him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any
other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards but
before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:
Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-
section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the
presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence:
Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police
officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under
any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain
to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and
that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the
Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon
questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is
being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person
appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make
the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of
such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in
Section 316 for recording the examination of an accused person and
shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the
Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to
the following effect:–
“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession
and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as
evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily
made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to
the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it
contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.
(Signed) A. B.
Magistrate.”
(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section
(1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the
recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted
to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power
to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
(6) (a) In cases punishable under Section 64, Section 65, Section 66,
Section 67, Section 68, Section 69, Section 70, Section 71, Section
74, Section 75, Section 76, Section 77, Section 78, Section 79 or
Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Magistrate
Page 6 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
submits that an improbable story is being webbed
to malign the Petitioner and the only goal is to see
that the Petitioner being put behind bars, would
result lose his job since, he is working as a
government doctor.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned
counsels for the State and the informant that such
a stand can be taken by any government servant
accused of the commission of an offence. Hence,
the same ought not to weigh with this Court.
shall record the statement of the person against whom such offence
has been committed in the manner specified in sub-section (5), as
soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the
police:
Provided that such statement shall, as far as practicable, be recorded
by a woman Magistrate and in her absence by a male Magistrate in
the presence of a woman:
Provided further that in cases relating to the offences punishable with
imprisonment for ten years or more or with imprisonment for life or
with death, the Magistrate shall record the statement of the witness
brought before him by the police officer:
Provided also that if the person making the statement is temporarily
or permanently, mentally or physically disabled, the Magistrate shall
take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording
the statement:
Provided also that if the person making the statement is temporarily
or permanently, mentally or physically disabled, the statement made
by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or a special
educator, shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means
preferably by mobile phone;
(b) a statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is
temporarily or permanently, mentally or physically disabled, shall be
considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief, as specified in
Section 142 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 such that the
maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement,
without the need for recording the same at the time of trial.
(7) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this
section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be
inquired into or tried.
Page 7 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
13. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer
to the judgments cited by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Rath.
13-A. The decision in the case of Pramod
Kumar Navratna (Supra)4 was passed while
considering the dismissal of a writ petition by the
High Court of Chhattisgarh, of the accused seeking
quashing of a proceeding under Section
376(2)(n)12 of IPC. On perusal of Paragraphs 19,
21 and 24 of the said judgment, it can be seen
that the Apex Court took note of the fact that the
victim therein was a married lady and it was also
held that “she was an advocate by profession and
not a naive or gullible woman incapable of taking
decisions for herself”. And, the Apex Court drew
12
376. Punishment for rape.–(2)Whoever,–(n) commits rape
repeatedly on the same woman,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for
life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s
natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section,–
(a) “armed forces” means the naval, military and air forces and
includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any law
for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces and any
auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central Government
or the State Government;
(b) “hospital” means the precincts of the hospital and includes the
precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons
during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or
rehabilitation;
(c) “police officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to the
expression “police” under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);
(d) “women’s or children’s institution” means an institution, whether
called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a
widow’s home or an institution called by any other name, which is
established and maintained for the reception and care of women or
children.
Page 8 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
an adverse inference regarding the conduct of the
complainant of being coerced into a relationship
during the subsistence of her earlier marriage.
13-B. In Manoj Kumar Moharana (Supra)5,
the proceeding under Section 691 of BNS was
quashed by this High Court on the ground that, in
the given facts of the said case, the complainant
was a married woman and therefore, was fully
aware of the subsisting marital bond and
consequential legal impediment to a lawful
marriage with the Petitioner therein.
13-C. In the order of the Patna High Court
dated 21.05.2025 in Ankit Kumar Barnwal
(Supra)6, relied upon by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner, as affirmed by the Apex Court, it is
seen that there was no allegation of establishing a
physical relationship as per the FIR, after the
dissolution of the informant’s marriage on
06.03.2025 and taking note of the same, pre-
arrest bail was granted, which was affirmed by the
Apex Court.
13-D. Learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner has relied on the order of the Apex
Court in the case of Praveen Manik Kadam
(Supra)7. Since the facts on which the said order
was passed are not detailed, this Court is
Page 9 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
handicapped in considering its applicability in the
case at hand.
14. On a bare perusal of the aforementioned
judgments, it is seen that the said judgments are
clearly distinguishable on facts, qua the present
case. As such, it can be of no assistance to the
Petitioner.
15. Learned counsel for the Informant relied on
the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Lok
Mal @ Loku (Supra)8, wherein, dealing with the
criminal appeal arising out of conviction, the Apex
Court quoted with approval its earlier decision in
the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v.
State of Gujarat13.
15-A. Learned counsel for the Informant
relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar
Verma (Supra)9 to buttress his submission that
the consent as alleged in the case at hand has to
be construed in the backdrop of deception that the
accused intended to marry the victim.
16. Learned counsel for the State relied on
paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment in Dr.
13
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC
217.
Page 10 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (supra)10, which is
extracted hereunder for convenience of reference;
“23. Thus, there is a clear distinction
between rape and consensual sex. The court,
in such cases, must very carefully examine
whether the complainant had actually
wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide
motives and had made a false promise to
this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the
latter falls within the ambit of cheating or
deception. There is also a distinction
between mere breach of a promise and not
fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has
not made the promise with the sole intention
to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in
sexual acts, such an act would not amount
to rape. There may be a case where the
prosecutrix agrees to have sexual
intercourse on account of her love and
passion for the accused and not solely on
account of the misconception created by the
accused, or where an accused, on account of
circumstances which he could not have
foreseen or which were beyond his control,
was unable to marry her despite having
every intention to do. Such cases must be
treated differently. If the complainant had
any mala fide intention and if he had
clandestine motives, it is a clear case of
rape. The acknowledged consensual physical
relationship between the parties would not
constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.
24. In the instant case, it is an admitted
position that the appellant was serving as aPage 11 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre
and the complainant was working as an
Assistant Nurse in the same health centre
and that she is a widow. It was alleged by
her that the appellant informed her that he
is a married man and that he has differences
with his wife. Admittedly, they belong to
different communities. It is also alleged that
the accused/appellant needed a month’s
time to get their marriage registered. The
complainant further states that she had
fallen in love with the appellant and that she
needed a companion as she was a widow.
She has specifically stated that “as I was
also a widow and I was also in need of a
companion, I agreed to his proposal and
since then we were having love affair and
accordingly we started residing together. We
used to reside sometimes at my home
whereas sometimes at his home”. Thus, they
were living together, sometimes at her
house and sometimes at the residence of the
appellant. They were in a relationship with
each other for quite some time and enjoyed
each other’s company. It is also clear that
they had been living as such for quite some
time together. When she came to know that
the appellant had married some other
woman, she lodged the complaint. It is not
her case that the complainant has forcibly
raped her. She had taken a conscious
decision after active application of mind to
the things that had happened. It is not a
case of a passive submission in the face of
any psychological pressure exerted andPage 12 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
there was a tacit consent and the tacit
consent given by her was not the result of a
misconception created in her mind. We are
of the view that, even if the allegations
made in the complaint are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, they do
not make out a case against the appellant.
We are also of the view that since the
complainant has failed to prima facie show
the commission of rape, the complaint
registered under Section 376(2)(b) cannot
be sustained.”
17. On the anvil of the decisions referred to
hereinabove, the rival stand is required to be
examined.
18. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the
informant that the very first physical act with the
informant on 07.12.2025 was a forced one.
Thereafter, under the threat perception arising
from the intimate videos having been recorded
during the first occurrence and on the assurance
of marriage, informant was compelled to continue
the physical relationship.
Per contra, it is the consistent stand of the
Petitioner that the relationship between the parties
was consensual and that, on account of the
marriage proposal having failed to materialise, the
present prosecution has been initiated, belatedly.
Page 13 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
It is apposite to note that the FIR does not
reflect any offence under the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
19. At this stage, it is neither expected nor
desirable take into account the rival versions to
render any finding with regard to the truthfulness
of the allegations. Whether the consent, if any,
was voluntary or was vitiated by misconception of
factum of assurance of marriage, threat or
deception, and whether the ingredients of the
offence alleged are ultimately made out, are
matters which would necessarily require
appreciation of materials coming to the fore during
investigation and, if occasion so arises, during
trial.
20. While dealing with the power under Section
48214 of the BNSS (Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.),
14
482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending
arrest.– (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be
arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence,
he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction
under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in
the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction
under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such
directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may
think fit, including–
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court;
(iv)such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3)
of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.
Page 14 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
the Apex Court, in its order dated 21.03.2023
in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation15, has clarified that anticipatory bail
is but another facet of post-arrest bail and held
that “Anticipatory bail after all is one of the
species of a bail”.
So, the conditions which impel the grant of
post-arrest bail also apply in equal measure to
pre-arrest bail.
21. On a bare perusal of the materials on record,
this Court finds that the relationship between the
parties admittedly stemmed from negotiations of
marriage. The sequence of events, the conduct
attributed to the parties and the improvements
alleged by the Petitioner in the subsequent
statements of the informant are all matters which
are in the realm of the ongoing investigation.
At this stage, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the prosecution case in the light
of the order of the Apex Court in the case of
(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer
in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either
at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer
to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking
cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should be issued in
the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant
in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest
of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under
Section 65 and sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
Corresponding Law: S. 438 of Cr.P.C.
15
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 452
Page 15 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
Satender Kumar Antil (supra)15, this Court is of
the considered view that prima facie the
prosecution has not been able to establish that
custodial interrogation of the Petitioner for the
purpose of effective investigation is imperative.
22. Keeping in view the nature of the accusation,
the materials available on record, the fact that the
Petitioner is a Government Medical Officer having
permanent roots in society, there being no
material placed before this Court to indicate that
he is likely to abscond/ evade/ interfere with the
process of law, this Court directs that on
surrendering within three weeks hence and
moving for bail, the Petitioner shall be released on
bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms
as deemed just and proper subject to the
additional condition that he shall cooperate with
the investigation and shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when called upon to
do so.
23. It is needless to state that the observations
made hereinabove are only for the purpose of
consideration of the Petitioner’s prayer for pre-
arrest bail and the same ought not to be
considered as this Court expressing any opinion
regarding the rival contentions qua the complicity
Page 16 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
of the Petitioner, which has to be probed
independently.
24. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 5th August, 2026/Santoshi
06th August, 2026 Uploaded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Aug-2026 18:01:44
Page 17 of 17
ABLAPL No.4828 of 2026
