Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Orissa High Court: In the present applications, the petitioners, a college Assistant Professor, Principal, and two students sought bail after being arrested for their alleged involvement in the suicide of a 20-year-old student of Fakir Mohan Autonomous College, Balasore, who reportedly faced persistent sexual harassment, mental torture, and threats from faculty members.
A Single Judge Bench of Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J., while disposing of the bail applications held that the genesis of such a drastic step by a young student lied in the hierarchy of the college administration and its inaction towards the harassment complained of by the victim. The Court emphasised that the statutory requirements were duly followed and found no illegality in the decisions of the Trial Courts, therefore, the arrest and detention were not arbitrary.
Background:
The First Information Report (‘FIR’) was lodged alleging that a 20-year-old student at a college in Balasore was subjected to sexual advances by the Assistant Professor. Upon refusal, she faced mental harassment and threats of academic failure. A written complaint to the Principal yielded no action, and she was further harassed. On 12-07-2025, she was summoned, compelled to apologise, and asked to withdraw her complaint. She was threatened with defamation and suicide. As a result, she attempted suicide and later succumbed to her injuries. Consequently, the FIR. held both the Principal and Assistant Professor responsible.
Upon registration of the FIR., the Principal and Assistant Professor, along with other petitioners, were arrested. The bail applications were rejected by the Trial Court and subsequently confirmed by the Sessions Judge. One petitioner submitted that the victim committed suicide due to disputes related to the college election and claimed to have no role in the incident. It was stated that the investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch, and no incriminating material was found. It was further argued that being a government servant and permanent resident, there was no chance of absconding, and bail was sought.
The Principal contended that on 30-06-2025, the victim reported mental torture to him, and on 01-07-2025, students gheraoed him demanding an inquiry. He constituted an Internal Complaint Committee, which submitted its report on 09-07-2025. On 12-07-2025, the victim was informed that there were no findings of sexual harassment. On the same day, she attempted suicide outside the Principal’s chamber. The petitioner argued that the grounds of arrest were not furnished, violating Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) and Article 22 of the Constitution, rendering the detention illegal and arbitrary.
Other petitioners, who were not named in the FIR., were arrested at a later stage. One petitioner was alleged to have instructed the victim to procure petrol and was reportedly in regular contact with her. Another was accused of recording the suicide, though this claim was disputed. Both petitioners contended that they had no specific role in the incident, were students, and had merely participated in protests. It was submitted that there was no evidence of instigation and that their continued detention was unjustified. Contrarily, the State opposed the bail, citing the gravity and magnitude of the crime and the necessity of custodial interrogation, asserting that the case shocked the conscience of society and created a law-and-order problem in the locality.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the alleged crime in the case was one of the most shocking incidents in recent times, deeply disturbing the conscience of the people of the State of Orissa. The Court noted that the FIR. revealed the victim, a student at a college in Balasore, had committed self-immolation by pouring petrol over her body and later succumbed to her injuries during treatment at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar.
The Court emphasised that the genesis of such a drastic step by a young student lied in the hierarchy of the college administration and its inaction towards the harassment complained of by the victim. The Court further observed that despite several laws and steps taken by the judiciary and administrative machinery to prevent such occurrences, all efforts were gone in vain and society collectively failed to protect the life of a young girl.
The Court highlighted that the inaction of the college authorities was the sole reason for the deceased taking such an extreme step. However, the Court preferred to refrain from making further observations, considering the ongoing investigation by the Crime Branch, which might be affected by premature judicial comments. The Court further observed that while dealing with the bail applications of the petitioners, it remained aware of the legal formalities and procedural safeguards that had to be adhered to.
The Court noted that all four bail applications arose from a common FIR. involving a single incident and were considered together. The Court observed that two accused had been specifically named in the FIR. with direct allegations of harassment and administrative inaction. The Court emphasised that their role in the alleged crime required thorough investigation and, since no final charge sheet was filed, it would not be appropriate to grant them bail at that stage.
The Court examined the arrest memos and highlighted that the grounds of arrest were clearly mentioned, including the FIR. details and prima facie evidence under relevant sections. The Court concluded that the statutory requirements were duly followed and found no illegality in the decisions of the Trial Courts. Therefore, the Court held that the arrest and detention were not arbitrary and the petitioners were not entitled to bail on that ground.
The Court observed that two other petitioners were not named in the FIR. and no specific role was attributed to them by the informant. They were implicated at a later stage of investigation. The Court noted that one petitioner was in regular contact with the deceased and allegedly instigated her, while the other was present at the scene and recorded the incident. However, the Court, considering their age, student status, local residence, and low risk of absconding, was inclined to release them on conditional bail.
The Court directed that two petitioners be released on bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs 50,000 each with two local solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. The release was to be subject to such other terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the Court. Further, the Court preserved the right of the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if any incriminating material arose during investigation.
However, the Court, was not inclined to consider the bail applications of two other petitioners as the investigation was still in progress. While rejecting their bail applications at that stage, the Court granted them liberty to renew their prayers after filing of the final charge-sheet by the Crime Branch. Thus, the bail applications stood disposed of.
[Samira Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, BLAPL No. 9219 of 2025, decided on 22-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Bijaya Kumar Behera, Adv.
For the Opposite Party: Partha Sarathi Nayak, A.G.A.