PRAKASH KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal U/S.14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016 (in short, "the Act") in nature of bail is directed against the order dtd. 5/8/2025 passed in CT Case No.104 of 2025 by which the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur, has refused to release the appellant on bail in connection with Balikuda PS Case No.177 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.376(2)(n)/493/313/341/294/ 323/354/506/34 of IPC r/w Ss. 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/ 3(2)(va) of the Act.

(2.) The gist of the allegation is that the victim and the appellant are known to each other and in the month of February, 2022, the appellant proposed to marry the victim and on one occasion on 5/2/2023, the appellant took the victim to one hotel at Khandagiri on the pretext of having food, but there he kept physical relationship with the victim despite her objection and, thereafter, when the victim became pregnant, the appellant and his family members forcefully aborted her pregnancy, but subsequently, again the appellant had taken the victim to the same hotel and kept physical relationship on the pretext of marrying her and after some days, the appellant and the victim also exchanged garland before the goddess Tarini in one temple, but subsequently, the appellant ditched the victim by not marrying her and assaulted her along with co-accused persons by casting aspersion to her caste; such as "tume chhota jati, dhoba loka, ama standard ra nuha". It is also alleged that the appellant and his family members had assured the victim to pay Rs.5,00,000.00, if she remains silent or otherwise they would kill her. On this background, the FIR was lodged resulting in the present case with examination of the victim in the trial in the meantime.

(3.) In the course of hearing, Mr. Samvit Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody since 15/7/2025 and he is an innocent person and has never committed the sexual act upon the victim and all the allegations made against him are false and concocted. Mr. Mohanty further submits that even if the materials on record are taken into consideration, no case under rape would be attracted against the appellant, since it is a case of consensual relationship and all the act of sexual relationship being consensual in nature, no offence would be attracted against the appellant, since both the victim and the appellant are major. It is further submitted that since the victim has already been examined, but the intention of legislature is not to keep an accused in confinement for indefinitely on the expectation that one day he would be convicted, however, at the same time, what would be the consequence if the appellant would be acquitted, because his suffering or trauma in the jail cannot be returned back. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohanty by emphasizing the principle "bail is the rule, but jail is the exception" prays to grant bail to the appellant.