Jharkhand High Court
Manish Kumar Keshri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 524 of 2020
Manish Kumar Keshri .... Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Seema Kumari ..... Respondents
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Appellants :Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the State :Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
For the Resp. No.2 :Mr. Manoj Kumar- No.6, Advocate
---------
04/Dated: 23.02.2021
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated
15.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-
cum-Special Judge Gumla, rejecting the prayer for grant of bail
to the appellant in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No.08 of
2020 registered under Section 376, 313 and 506, of IPC and
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has drawn
attention to the recital in the FIR and submitted that it would be
evident that the prosecutrix is aged 23 years and she has alleged
that since 2006 the appellant had physical relationship with her.
She has alleged that two or three times she was subjected to
aborticide and subsequently she gave birth to a male child. She
has stated that the appellant promised her that he would marry
her and so when she learnt that the appellant's marriage was to
be solemnized with another girl, she approached him to marry
her but he refused to do so. Thereafter, FIR was lodged.
It is argued that in view of the materials on record the
ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 376 IPC is
not made out as sexual relationship was consensual since both
the parties are major hence the appellant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, assisted by the
learned APP have submitted that the victim belongs to SC/ST
community. The appellant had sexually exploited her since 2006
and a couple of times she had to undergo abortion at the behest
of the appellant. She had given birth to a male child and the
DNA test was conducted regarding paternity of the child. As per
the DNA report it was found that the appellant was the father of
the child. The appellant refused to marry the prosecutrix on the
ground that she belonged to scheduled caste.
4. Heard. Perused the impugned order wherein it has been
mentioned that in the DNA report it was found that the appellant
is the father of the child borne by the victim. It appears that the
appellant had sexually exploited the victim over years on the
pretext that he would marry her, but refused to marry her.
Thus, considering the allegations and the conduct of the
appellant, the prayer for bail of the appellant is, hereby,
declined.
5. The court below is directed to expedite the trial and
conclude it at the earliest preferably by December 2021 from
the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order, failing
which the appellant is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail.
6. With the aforesaid direction the appeal stands dismissed.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
Tarun/
