p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1662 of 2026 Krupa Pangi ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Charchit Pradhan, Adv. On behalf of Mr. Kiran Kumar Patel, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. .….... Opposite Party Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 23.04.2026 Order No. 01. F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 103 10.06. 2025 Chitrakonda C.T. Case No.106 of 2025, pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri. 69 of the BNS read with 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.103 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No.106 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Apr-2026 12:29:50 Signature Not Verified p. 2 Malkangiri, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 69 of the BNS, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case, as per the FIR lodged by the informant, is that she developed a love affair with the Petitioner. On most occasions, the Petitioner visited her village and had physical relations with her on the false assurance of marriage. On the night of 15.03.2025 at about 1:00 a.m., the Petitioner came to her village and asked her to marry him. Accordingly, on the same day, they got married at Thakurani Temple situated near village Chhak, without intimating their parents. It is further alleged that since the victim belongs to a lower caste community, the Petitioner later denied accepting her. Hence, the case was registered. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations made against the Petitioner are false, fabricated, and baseless and have been made only to implicate him in a criminal case. The Petitioner, being an innocent and law- abiding citizen, has never been involved in any criminal case and has no prior criminal antecedents of any manner. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the Investigating Officer (I.O.), during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of the victim and other p. 3 witnesses and, on 08.08.2025, arrested the Petitioner. Since then, he has been in custody. The I.O., after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet on 06.09.2025 under Section 69 of the BNS against the present Petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that a bare perusal of the FIR and charge sheet would reveal that the victim and the Petitioner were in a consensual relationship and thereafter solemnized their marriage voluntarily in a temple. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS clearly discloses that she herself was in love with the Petitioner for about one year and that the relationship was voluntary and based on mutual consent. The victim has categorically stated that she agreed to the relationship and thereafter marriage took place. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the basic ingredients of Section 69 of the BNS are not attracted in the present case, as the prosecution materials do not prima facie establish that the Petitioner never intended to marry her from the very beginning, which is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 69 of the BNS. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been submitted on 06.09.2025. Hence, custodial p. 4 interrogation of the Petitioner is not required in the present case. The case is now at the stage of hearing on charge, and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. The Petitioner, a young man aged about 22 years, has been languishing in custody since 08.08.2025. 10. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the contents of the FIR reveal that the petitioner committed rape upon the victim by making a false promise of marriage. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 69 of the BNS is heinous in nature and that there exists prima facie material against the petitioner. In view of the gravity of the offence, it is submitted that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 11. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the nature of accusation, stage of investigation and the nature of allegations, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner should be granted bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case. However, such release shall be conditioned upon stringent terms and conditions, as the learned Court deems fit and just. The conditions are as follows:- i. The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise p. 5 any person acquainted with the facts of the case; ii. The Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; iii. The Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission; iv. The Petitioner shall furnish his current address and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and shall not change the same without prior intimation; v. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not hamper the same in any manner. 12. Any violation of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. 14. Issue urgent certified copy of this Order as per Rules. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun