Prakash Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.968 of 2025

(In the matter of an appeal Under Section-14(A) of SC & ST (PoA) Act).

Prakash Kumar Sahoo …. Appellant -versus- State of Orissa and another …. Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP Mr. S.K. Padhy, Advocate(Informant)

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶7

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:19.12.2025(ORAL)

¶8

G. Satapathy, J.

¶9

1. This criminal appeal U/S.14-A of the

¶10

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 dated 05.08.2025 passed in CT Case No.104 of 2025 by which the learned Sessions Judgecum-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/

¶11

CRLA No.968 of 2025

¶12

Page 1 of 9

¶13

323/354/506/34 of IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/ 3(2)(va) of the Act.

¶14

2. The gist of the allegation is that the victim

¶15

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 05.02.2023, 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,

¶16

ama standard ra nuha”. It is also alleged that the

¶17

CRLA No.968 of 2025

¶18

Page 2 of 9

¶19

appellant and his family members had assured the victim to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, 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.

¶20

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Samvit Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody since 15.07.2025 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

¶21

an accused in confinement for indefinitely on the

¶22

CRLA No.968 of 2025 Page 3 of 9

¶23

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.

¶24

3.1. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by placing the evidence of victim submits that not only the appellant has committed rape upon the victim, but also he has acted in cruel manner by assaulting the victim as well as aborting her pregnancy and, therefore, the appellant may not be granted bail.

¶25

3.2. On the other hand, Mr. Saroj Kumar Padhy, learned counsel for the informant-victim, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the appellant by contending inter-alia that when the intention of the appellant is to deceive the victim at the inception, his sexual act would squarely covered under the purview of

¶26

CRLA No.968 of 2025

¶27

Page 4 of 9

¶28

rape and the victim evidence indicating about the accused committing forcible sexual intercourse on the first instance, the act of the appellant is squarely covered by the definition of rape and the evidence of the victim having clarified about the appellant and his family members aborting pregnancy, the appellant is prima facie liable for offence U/S. 313 of IPC, which prescribes imprisonment for life and, therefore, the bail application of the appellant should not be considered lightly. Mr. Padhi also submits that when the appellant has no intention to keep the promise from the very beginning, the seduction of the victim would definitely bring the act of the appellant under the purview of rape and, therefore, the appellant should not granted bail. In summing up his argument, Mr. Padhi prays to reject the prayer for bail of the appellant. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the appellant for committing sexual intercourse despite objection by the victim, but the subsequent sexual act of the appellant has not been CRLA No.968 of 2025 Page 5 of 9

¶29

stated to be objected by the victim, however, it is not the stage to evaluate the evidence elaborately to find out as to whether the offence is made out or not, but law is fairly well settled that the Court while considering the prayer for bail has to consider and weigh the materials on record to find out prima facie case. It is also settled law that bail should not be withheld as a pre-trial punishment because the detention in custody is irreversible process and the detenue cannot be restored ante in case of his acquittal and at the same time, grant of bail should not be confused with letting the accused to be acquitted, since bail is a temporary release from the custody as well as transfer of custody from law to surety. It is undisputed in this case that the appellant is in custody since 15.07.2025 and in the meantime, victim has already been examined, but it is alleged by the victim for commission of rape and forcible abortion of her pregnancy by the appellant, who has countered such allegation by taking the plea that the relationship between the parties is consensual

¶30

CRLA No.968 of 2025

¶31

Page 6 of 9

¶32

in nature, however, the same can be answered in a fullfledged trial after evidence being led.

¶33

5. One of the important considerations in

¶34

granting bail is securing attendance of the accused at the trial, but at the same time, the Court has to strike a balance between the nature and gravity of the accusation, the frivolity of charge sought to be brought by the prosecution, the punishment prescribed for the offence on conviction, the possibility of accused tampering with the evidence and last but not the least, the impact of release of accused on bail on the society. In this case, since the victim has already been examined, this Court, however, reasonably considers that there is hardly any chance of tampering of evidence of material witness like the victim. It is also not sure as to when the trial would conclude, but keeping the accused in confinement for an indefinite period is not the spirit of law and is against the fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, especially when the victim has already

¶35

CRLA No.968 of 2025 Page 7 of 9

¶36

been examined and taking into account the pre-trial detention of the appellant in custody keeping in view the inherent right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court does consider positively in favour of the appellant to extend the benefit of bail.

¶37

6. Hence, the CRLA stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed/set aside. Consequently, the appellant be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by the learned Court in seisin over the matter with following conditions:-

¶38

(i) the appellant shall not contact the victim or her family members. The appellant shall not visit to the house of the victim or her village or also to the place of her abode till disposal of the case,

¶39

(ii) the appellant shall not threaten, induce influence or coerce any of the witnesses including the family of the members of the victim acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court.

¶40

This Court, however, reserves the liberty to

¶41

the informant/victim and the State to file appropriate

¶42

CRLA No.968 of 2025

¶43

Page 8 of 9

¶44

application for cancellation of bail, in case of violation of any of the conditions noted above or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. It is, however, clarified that in case of approach to the learned Court in seisin over the matter for cancellation of bail, the said Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.

¶45

7. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as

¶46

per Rules.

¶47

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶48

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 19^th December, 2025/Subhasmita

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa CRLA N o.9 68 of 2025 Page 9 of 9 Date: 19-Dec-2025 19:10:33

Prakash Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunakar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Manas Pahan Vs State of Odisha

Anup Sekharn @ Anup Sekharan Vs State of Odisha

Gopinath Sahu Vs General Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Khordha

Rasananda Kandeyang Vs State of Odisha

Sridhar @ Sreedhar Majhi Vs State of Odisha