IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2436 of 2025 Parae Munda …. Petitioner Mr. Anup Ku. Biswal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Ms.Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 06.05.2025 F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 104 04.04.2024 Reamal S.T. Case No.49/39 of 2024 to pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (WC), Deogarh Section 376(2)(B)/ 506 of the IPC 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Reamal PS Case No.104 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No.49/39 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (WC), Deogarh, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections-376(2)(B)/ 506 of the IPC, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that one Pala Soy lodged a written report before the IIC, Reamal P.S. alleging therein that she has two daughters. Her younger daughter has already married and her elder daughter X used to stay with her. The informant is a daily laborer. So, she used to go for work every day. As day by day the belly of her daughter, (X) increased, she suspected that her daughter was pregnant, and hence, took X for ultrasound at Dim, Deogarh where she got confirmation that indeed X was pregnant. Thereafter, she called a meeting in presence of the village gentries and asked X about her pregnancy where she told that one Parae Munda, aged about 37 years, S/o: Singari Munda, of Village Kumharahuli. Banakala, P.S.: Reamal, Dist.:- Deogarh had kept forcible physical relationship with her (X) in the absence of the informant. The Petitioner had also threatened her over phone of dire consequences and the present Petitioner kept forcible sexual relationship with X since one year. After the meeting the informant along with X and other village gentries named Laehu Hasa and Khairi Hasa went to the house of the Petitioner but the Petitioner fled from his house towards the Jungle. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that there is consensual relationship between the Petitioner and the victim ‘X’. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in the meantime, charge-sheet has been filed in this case on 01.06.2024. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner on such terms and conditional as deems fit and proper. 6. The victim ‘X’ is present in Court through video conferencing, strongly opposes the prayer of the Petitioner, because the Petitioner has forcible kept physical relationship without her consent. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner, the stringent punishment provided and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case, the prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, the Petitioner is granted liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail afresh after framing of charge. 8. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Narayan