Bail Is the Rule, Jail the Exception: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in Rape and SC/ST Atrocities Case, Citing Completion of Victim's Testimony

“Pre-trial detention is not punishment. Liberty cannot be indefinitely suspended while trial drags on,” In a significant ruling Orissa High Court granted bail to an accused charged with serious offences including rape, forced abortion, and caste-based abuse under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that prolonged pre-trial custody without risk of tampering evidence violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

Deciding CRLA No. 968 of 2025, filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, Justice G. Satapathy set aside the Sessions Court's order refusing bail to Prakash Kumar Sahoo, who had been in custody since 15th July 2025. The High Court observed that the victim had already been examined in trial, and there was no cogent apprehension of interference with witnesses or evidence.

“The detention in custody is an irreversible process, and the detenue cannot be restored ante in case of his acquittal. Bail is a temporary release—not an acquittal,” the Court remarked, invoking the time-honoured principle that “bail is the rule, jail the exception”.

“When Trial Is Delayed and Witnesses Examined, Detention Becomes Excessive”

The prosecution alleged that the appellant repeatedly raped the victim under a false promise of marriage, forcibly aborted her pregnancy with the help of his family, and later subjected her to caste-based abuse, including slurs such as “tume chhota jati, dhoba loka, ama standard ra nuha”.

The charges included Sections 376(2)(n), 493, 313, 354, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, with the informant also alleging threats and inducement to silence.

However, taking note that the victim has already been examined in court, the High Court found that there was now minimal threat of witness tampering, and that indefinite custody was unwarranted when the issue of consent, deception and intention is best left for determination at trial.

“Law is fairly well settled that the Court while considering the prayer for bail has to weigh the materials on record to find out prima facie case... not to indulge in a full-fledged evaluation of the evidence at this stage,” Justice Satapathy reasoned.

Consent, Deception, and the Scope of Bail: A Matter for Trial, Not Pre-Trial Detention

The defence argued that the relationship was consensual, both parties were majors, and the promise to marry did not amount to fraud at inception. The appellant also pointed to absence of intent to deceive from the beginning, and stressed that any determination of guilt must await a full trial.

On the contrary, counsel for the informant insisted that the initial resistance by the victim, coupled with a false promise of marriage, and the forcible abortion, constituted clear offences under Sections 376 and 313 IPC.

Yet, the High Court made it clear that: “It is not the stage to evaluate the evidence elaborately... The Court must strike a balance between the gravity of accusation, the possibility of tampering, and the right to liberty under Article 21.”

Referring to the constitutional guarantee of presumption of innocence, the Court underscored that the intention of the law is not to punish the accused by pre-trial incarceration but to ensure fair trial.

Bail with Safeguards: Contact Prohibited, Liberty to Cancel if Violated

While granting bail, the High Court imposed stringent conditions to safeguard the victim and preserve the integrity of the trial, directing that:

“The appellant shall not contact the victim or her family, shall not visit her house or village, and shall not induce, threaten or coerce any witness connected with the case.”

The Court also preserved the liberty of the victim or the State to apply for cancellation of bail in case of any violation.

“Keeping an accused in confinement indefinitely is not the spirit of law and is against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21,” the Court asserted, making it clear that prolonged pre-trial detention amounts to punitive incarceration.

In a case involving grave allegations of rape, forced abortion, and caste atrocities, the Orissa High Court upheld the supremacy of personal liberty and constitutional safeguards by granting bail once the victim’s testimony was recorded and the threat to justice minimized.

This ruling reiterates that bail jurisprudence must not be driven by the seriousness of the charge alone, but by a nuanced assessment of evidence, trial progress, and the accused’s rights.

The Court’s careful balancing of victim protection and accused rights once again affirms the constitutional principle that justice must be even-handed—and liberty must not be collateral damage of delay.

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025