Jharkhand High Court
Sajid Hussain @ Mohammad Sajid ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 2 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 877 of 2022
Sajid Hussain @ Mohammad Sajid Ansari @ Sajid Husen
--- --- Appellant
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Rina Hansdak --- --- Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : M//s Bhaskar Trivedi, Rahul Dev, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Yogendra Yadav, Advocate
04/02.05.2023 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State assisted
by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the order / Judgment dated
28.11.2022 passed by the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Giridih, in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1852 of 2022, corresponding to
SC/ST Case No.60 of 2022 arising out of Tisri P.S. Case No.53 of 2022
dated 01.07.2022 for the offence punishable under section 376D, 376E,
504, 506, 509/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w)
of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act whereby and where under
the court below has rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the gist of the
allegations against the appellant was that he had established physical
relationship with the informant under the pretext of marriage and when
he refused to marry with the informant, then the case was instituted with
the allegation that this appellant along with his friends had committed
sexual assault / rape upon her. It has further been submitted that it is a
pure case of love affairs between both the parties. The appellant and the
informant had established physical relationship consensually on the
promise of marriage as evident from the F.I.R. itself. Further, it has been
pointed out that after institution of the case both parties have entered into
compromise and now appellant is married with the informant and their
marriage has been registered and the marriage certificate has also been
annexed along with the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant.
Therefore, the entire dispute between both the parties is over now and
they are living a happy conjugal life peacefully and quietly.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 did not deny this fact that both parties including the
respondent no.2 and the appellant have married with each other and their
marriage has also been registered and the registration of the marriage,
which is annexed to the supplementary affidavit has been accepted by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2. Further,
it is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.2 that counter affidavit has been filed which is virtually a
joint compromise petition in which both parties have agreed to get
married and accordingly marriage has taken place, which has also been
registered through the concerned Registrar.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State also did not
controvert the fact that both the parties i.e., appellant and the respondent
no.2 are married to each other and the marriage certificate to that effect
has also been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit.
6. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions on
behalf of both the parties, it is found just and proper to confirm the
provisional bail granted to the appellant by order dated 02.02.2023.
Accordingly, the provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order
dated 02.02.2023 is confirmed. Consequently, the impugned order
28.11.2022 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act
Giridih in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1852 of 2022 corresponding
to SC/ST Case No. 60 of 2022 arising out of Tisri P.S. Case No. 53 of
2022 is set aside.
7. The criminal appeal is allowed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
