Bhabani Shankar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Instant petition under Section 483 BNSS is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with C.T. Case No.2280 of 2024 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.-V, Bhubaneswar corresponding to Khandagiri P.S. Case No.865 of 2024 on the grounds stated.

¶17

Gone through the FIR as at Annexure-1 and rejection order i.e. Annexure-3.

¶18

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations, as made to appear from Annexure-1, are false, since, the petitioner’s grandfather had died much earlier in 2009, whereas, the claim of the informant that he was treated at the hospital, when she met the accused. It is further submitted that since the FIR was

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

lodged by the informant when the marriage between her and the petitioner did not materialize. In any case, according to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, the allegations are absolutely falsehood and therefore, considering the same the petitioner, who is in custody from 16^th December, 2024, should be allowed to go on bail with any conditions as would be imposed by the Court.

¶21

Ms. Ojha, learned counsel for the informant strongly opposed release of the petitioner on the ground that the victim was forced to a relationship and was deserted and had become pregnant which was terminated at the instance of the petitioner. Similar objection is received from by Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR.

¶22

Perused the FIR and contents thereof which reveals that the petitioner came in contact with the informant and thereafter, the relationship was developed and during such relationship, the latter had become pregnant. It is alleged that such pregnancy was terminated administering medicine by the petitioner. It is also alleged that there was promise of marriage and with such promise given to the informant, the physical relationship was developed by the petitioner. The other events which have taken place in between have been narrated by the informant in the FIR i.e. Annexure-1. The Court finds that there has been a relationship between the two for sometime as is prima facie revealed from the FIR and when the petitioner either failed or declined to marry the informant, the FIR was lodged. It is claimed by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel that the FIR was lodged shortly after the marriage of the petitioner which had taken place on 10^th December, 2024. The report is shown to have received on 13^th December, 2024. In view of the above facts and circumstances described in the FIR and fact that there was a relationship between the parties, though, it is alleged that such was

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

on a false promise of marriage which hence did not materialize towards the end, the Court is of the view that the petitioner, who has remained in judicial custody since the date of arrest, should be allowed to go on bail subject to following conditions.

¶25

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, the petition under Section 483 BNSS stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.T. Case No.2280 of 2024 arising out of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.865 of 2024 subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C.-V, Bhubaneswar, who shall be at liberty to impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper besides the following, such as, he shall not cause any harm and terrorize the informant and tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever, while on bail and to appear at the PS and report the IO for the purpose of investigation, if the same is not yet concluded.

¶27

9. The BLAPL is disposed of.

¶28