Personal Liberty Must Not Be Curtailed Save For Compelling And Demonstrable Reasons | Orissa High Court Grants Interim Bail, Highlighting Law Must Not Punish Emotional Intimacy Between Peers
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi directed the release of the petitioner on interim bail for a period of one month. The Court held that the matter involved a consensual relationship between individuals close in age and did not warrant continued pretrial incarceration. The release was made conditional upon terms determined by the trial court, including a requirement that the petitioner not commit any criminal offence or tamper with prosecution evidence. The Court instructed that the petitioner surrender upon completion of the bail period.
The petitioner was in custody in connection with Niali P.S. Case No. 28 of 2023, corresponding to Spl. G.R. Case No. 08 of 2023, pending before the Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court under POCSO Act-1), Cuttack. The charges framed included offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n), 313, 323, 294, 417, 344, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The allegations arose from a complaint filed at the Niali Police Station by Sabnam Begum, who claimed that the petitioner had been in a relationship with her since 2019, beginning when she was a minor. It was alleged that the relationship was initiated under the promise of marriage and resulted in a pregnancy in 2020, which was terminated at the petitioner’s behest. According to the complainant, despite continued assurances of marriage by the petitioner and his family, the relationship persisted and led to another pregnancy. On 29 December 2022, the petitioner allegedly engaged in forced sexual relations with her. When the matter was brought to the attention of her father, the petitioner and his family members were alleged to have verbally abused, physically assaulted, and threatened them.
In response, the petitioner submitted that he was falsely implicated following his refusal to marry the complainant. He contended that there was no corroborating witness to support the allegations and raised questions regarding the integrity of the investigation. The petitioner also stated that his bail had previously been rejected without proper judicial application of mind. In support of his interim bail plea, the petitioner cited personal hardship, including the deteriorating health of his mother and the financial strain on his family. He assured the Court that he would not abscond, nor would he interfere with the investigation or tamper with evidence.
It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that local community members had intervened, leading to a mutual understanding between the families of both parties. According to the petitioner, the dispute had been amicably settled, and he had agreed to marry the complainant upon his release. Based on this mutual resolution and undertaking, the petitioner sought interim bail for one month to solemnize the marriage.
The State opposed the prayer for interim bail, asserting the gravity of the offences, particularly under the POCSO Act. The prosecution contended that the allegations revealed repeated sexual exploitation of a minor and that releasing the petitioner could pose risks to the victim and the fairness of the judicial process. The State submitted that a strong prima facie case had been established against the petitioner and argued that bail should not be granted due to the serious nature of the charges and the need to protect the prosecutrix.
The Court observed: “the present case requires a more nuanced and contextual approach rather than a mere mechanical application of statutory provisions.” It stated that while the statutory framework aims to protect minors and deter sexual offences, “judicial discretion must also take into account the evolving social realities where romantic relationships between adolescents or young adults often take form outside the rigid structures of marriage or parental approval.”
The Court recorded: “It is not the purpose of the law to criminalize youthful romance when both parties are nearly of the same age and there exists no apparent element of coercion, exploitation, or abuse of trust.” It further stated: “The rigidity of statutory interpretation must not override the requirement for justice to be humane, contextual and proportionate.”
Discussing legal developments in comparative jurisdictions, the Court noted: “The so-called Romeo and Juliet clauses recognized in various comparative jurisdictions acknowledge that not all technical violations of age-of-consent laws are criminal in intent or effect.” While not codified in Indian law, the Court held that “judicial reasoning rooted in equity and proportionality may well draw inspiration from such doctrines.”
The judgment referred to Sabari @ Sabarinathan @ Sabarivasan v. The Inspector of Police, quoting: “Such relationship cannot be construed as an unnatural one... unfortunately, the provisions of the POCSO Act get attracted if such relationship transcends beyond platonic limits, attracting strong arm of law sanctioned by the provisions of POCSO Act...”
The Court also cited the Bombay High Court in Sunil Mahadev Patil v. The State of Maharashtra, which stated: “Sexual urge differs from person to person and there cannot be any mathematical formula in respect of sexual behavioral pattern of teenagers...” and “a boy in his early 20's deserves to get employment and to plan, stabilize and secure his future.”
Referring to the factual context, the Court stated: “legal proceedings may become a proxy for familial disapproval rather than a genuine invocation of victimhood.” It noted: “The intention of the legislation is not to provide a tool for enforcing outdated moral codes but to serve as a shield against exploitation and abuse.”
The Court distinguished the present case from those involving clear power imbalances, stating: “when the relationship in question emerges from mutual familiarity between individuals close in age, and where there is no material to suggest abuse of position, intimidation or exploitation, the prosecutorial lens must be realigned with compassion and realism.”
It concluded: “The possibility of reconciliation, the familial understanding now reached, and the future prospects of both parties further tilt the balance in favor of extending temporary liberty without compromising the integrity of the ongoing investigation or the dignity of the prosecutrix.”
The Court held: “The grant of interim bail in such contexts does not erode the seriousness of the offence if established at trial, but rather affirms the constitutional principle that personal liberty must not be curtailed save for compelling and demonstrable reasons.”
The Court directed: “In view of the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the marriage of the Petitioner and the informant, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on interim bail for a period of one month reckoning from the date of his actual release on interim bail by the court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that:
“The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on interim bail; and
“The Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner.”
The Court further directed: “The Petitioner shall surrender before the court in seisin over the matter on or before the exact date of completion of interim bail period.”
The Court concluded: “The I.A. is, accordingly, disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kshirod Kumar Rout, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, Additional Standing Counsel
Case Title: XXX v. State of Odisha
Case Number: BLAPL No.1805 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi
[Read/Download order]
