Manish Anand vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5313 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Manish Anand vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 April, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 88 of 2025
                         ---------

     Manish Anand                      ..... Appellant
                         Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand
     2.XXXX (Victim)                   ..... Respondents
                         ----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

----------

For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Shishir Raj, Advocate Mr. Priyanshu Shekhar, Advocate

----------

05/29.04.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 3042 of 2024, arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No.45/2024, CNR No. JHRN01-012934-2024, instituted u/ss. 249/ 127(1)/ 115(2)/ 63/ 64(2)(B)/ 69/74/76/318(2)(4)/352/351(2) BNS & U/s.s 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)(ii) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by Shri. Manish Ranjan, learned AJC-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi, by which the anticipatory bail petition of the Appellant has been rejected.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Shishir Raj, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

3. It transpires that one Complaint Case No.64 of 2024 was filed by the complainant, i.e. Respondent No.2 against one Arvind Kumar Chowdhary,

i.e. father of the Appellant and the Appellant, namely Manish Anand stating therein that after the death of her husband, while she was in search of a job, then she had met with Arvind Kr. Chowdhary, i.e. the father of the Appellant and who had called her and she went to a Hotel with him where he established physical relationship with her. Thereafter, she continuously remained in touch with Arvind Kr. Chowdhary, who established physical relationship with her several times. In the meantime, Arvind Kr. Chowdhary retired and during this period said Arvind Kr. Chowdhary introduced the Complainant as his wife at all the places. It has been also alleged that on 25.12.2023 Arvind Kr. Chowdhary abused her in the name of her caste on the Christmas day and thrown Rs.1,000/-. It is also alleged that Arvind Kr. Chowdhary arrived at Patna and informed her that he will not return back and upon which the Informant, along with her daughter and son went to Patna on 04.01.2024 and said Arvind Kumar Chowdhary is said to have arrived near the Patna High Court and asked her to return to Ranchi. However, in the meantime, the Appellant Manish Anand also arrived there and disclosed himself as the son of Arvind Kumar Chowdhary and threatened her, her son and daughter of dire consequences and recorded her video. It is also alleged that the Appellant had snatched her Dupatta in order to outrage her modesty and followed her to Patna Railway Station.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not

sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Complainant was in consensual relationship with Arvind Kumar Chowdhary, who is father of the Appellant, for around 16 years and at that time no complaint was raised against the Appellant. It is submitted that for the first time the Informant has made allegation of threatening and outraging her modesty on 04.01.2024 and prior to this there was no specific overt act against the Appellant. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the case of the Complainant as on the one hand she is said to have lived in live-in-relationship with the father of the Appellant for around 16 years and on the other, she could not recognize the Appellant on 04.01.2024. It is submitted that there was no public view near the Patna High Court at the time of alleged abuse given by this Appellant and hence, the Appellant may be enlarged on Anticipatory bail and the impugned order may be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that there is directed allegation against the Appellant for abusing the Complainant-Respondent No.2 in the name of her caste and also for threatening her and also for outraging her modesty by pulling her 'Dupatta' in public view on 04.01.2024 in front of Patna High Court and hence, prayer of the Appellant for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected.

6. Mr. Shishir Raj, learned counsel for the Complainant-Respondent No.2, after adopting the argument of the learned A.P.P., has also vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted

that the Appellant is the son of co-accused Arvind Kr. Chowdhary, who has remained in relationship with the Informant on the pretext of providing her job and security. It is submitted that on 04.01.2024 the Appellant had threatened her and abused her in the name of caste in full public view near Patna High Court and chased her till Patna Railway Station while she was returning. It is submitted that the Appellant, along with his father, had abused the Complainant-Respondent No.2 in the name of her Caste.

Learned counsel for the Complaintant- Respondent No.2 has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Versus State through Standing Counsel & Anr. passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1287 of 2008 on 18.08.2008 and submitted that at the stage of granting Anticipatory Bail only the contents of the F.I.R. is to be seen and the allegations made in the F.I.R. can be verified during trial only. Thus, this is not a fit case for grant of Anticipatory Bail and hence, the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the Appellant may be rejected and this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the F.I.R. and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and also the judgment dated 18.08.2008, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh & Ors. Versus State through Standing Counsel & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1287 of 2008.

8. It appears that F.I.R. bearing SC/ST P.S. Case No.45/2024 was instituted on 12.09.2024 for the

offences u/ss. 249/ 127(1)/ 115(2)/ 63/ 64(2)(B)/ 69/74/76/ 318(2)/318(4)/352/351(2) BNS & U/s.s 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)(ii) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the basis of Complaint Case No. 64 of 2024, filed before the Court of Shri Manish Ranjan, Spl. Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ranchi on 13.08.2024.

9. It appears that there is a delay of more than Seven (07) months in filing the Complaint Case, which led to lodging of the F.I.R. and there is no plausible explanation given by the Informant on the point of delay.

10. It appears from the F.I.R. arising out of Complaint Case No.64 of 2024 that the Complainant has got main grievance against one Arvind Kumar Chowdhary, who is the father of the Appellant, who was said to have been in consensual relationship with the Complainant for around 16 years.

11. It appears that save and except the allegation levelled against the Appellant in the F.I.R. on 04.01.2024, there is no allegation against him during the said intervening period of 16 years for committing any overt act or for abusing her.

12. This Court refrains itself from making any observation on the allegation made in the Complaint case and the F.I.R. at this stage, but this Court finds that there is long delay of around Seven (07) months in lodging the F.I.R. by filing the Complaint Petition, though the Complainant is a matured lady.

13. Accordingly, the order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 3042 of 2024,

arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No.45/2024, CNR No. JHRN01-012934-2024, by Shri. Manish Ranjan, AJC-II- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi is set aside

14. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, the Appellant, namely Manish Anand is directed to surrender in the Court within a period of Four (04) weeks from the date of this order and the in the event of his surrender, the Appellant, namely Manish Anand is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Shri. Manish Ranjan, learned AJC-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi /or his Successor Court in connection with SC/ST P.S.Case No.45/2024, CNR No. JHRN01-012934-2024 and subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

of 2025 is allowed.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.