Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 380 of 2025
....
Jitendra Thakur ......Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Victim ......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. A. K Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P
For the Informant : None
......
Order No: 05/Dated: 13.10.2025
It appears that none had appeared on behalf of the
informant on 07.08.2025 and 08.09.2025 and even, today i.e. on
13.10.2025, none appears on behalf of the informant and hence,
the case is being heard on its own merit.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated
22.03.2025 and sentence dated 24.03.2025 passed in S.T No. 324
of 2019 by Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Nagar Untari in connection with Nagar Untari P.S Case
No. 139 of 2019 corresponding to G.R Case No. 886 of 2019 by
which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 365 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for five (05)
years and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand).
3. I.A No. 10102 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant under Section 430(1) of B.N.S.S, 2023 for suspension of
sentence and for grant of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the
eye of law. It is submitted that the victim girl is a major girl aged
around 21 years on the date of occurrence and she had voluntarily
gone with the appellant from her own house. It is submitted that
there is no allegation of committing sexual assault upon the victim
girl and she had accompanied the appellant to Kharaundhi,
Banaras, Haryana, New Delhi and several other places and she had
made no complaint. It is further submitted that the statement of
victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and in which
she has not made any specific allegation against the appellant but
while examined as P.W-3, she had made certain allegation against
the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has remained in
custody for eight (08) months during the trial and thereafter, the
appellant is in custody since 22.03.2025 i.e. for around seven (07)
months and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct
allegation against the appellant for abducting the victim girl aged
around 21 years on the pretext of marriage. It is submitted that
victim girl while examined as P.W-3 has stated that the appellant
had forcibly married with her and threatened her of dire
consequences. It is submitted that several witnesses have
supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that P.W-1
(i.e. the father of the victim girl), P.W-2 (i.e. the mother of victim
girl) and P.W-4 Karn Kumar (i.e. the brother of victim girl) have
supported the prosecution case against the appellant and hence, the
prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.
6. Perused the Trial Court Records and considered the
submissions of both the sides.
7. It reveals that the F.I.R was lodged by the father of the
victim girl after the delay of six (06) days as the victim girl was
missing from her house on 19.07.2019 but the F.I.R was lodged on
25.07.2019.
8. It appears that the victim girl was aged 21 years on the
date of institution of F.I.R.
9. From perusal of the Statement of victim girl recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it reveals that she had received earlier
one mobile phone from the appellant and they were on talking
terms with each other and the appellant has performed marriage
with her and she had gone to Kharaundhi, New Delhi, Haryana
and Banaras also but during the said period, she had not raised any
grievance.
10. It appears from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that
P.W-1 who is the father of the victim girl, has stated that he had
instituted a case against the appellant due to suspicion and he had
not seen the appellant taking away the victim girl.
11. So far as the victim girl is concerned while examined as
P.W-3 she stated to have gone with the appellant on 19.07.2019
from Bhawanathpur to Kharaundhi by Bus and thereafter, she was
taken to Banaras by Bus and from Banaras, she taken to New
Delhi and in the meantime, the appellant is alleged to have sold
her gold earing. She also alleged to have stated that the appellant
had threatened her of dire consequences.
It appears from her cross-examination at Para-12 that her
date of birth is 01.08.1998 i.e. aged around 21 years on the date of
occurrence and she was a major girl.
12. P.W-4 is the brother of the victim girl who has supported
the prosecution case to the extent that the appellant had abducted
her but admitted that his sister was living in Banaras.
During cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion
for taking the victim girl by the motorcycle by the appellant.
13. It appears that the victim girl is a major girl and she is
aged 21 years on the date of occurrence and she has not raised
alarm while she was living with the appellant at Kharaundhi,
Banaras, New Delhi and Haryana.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the
appellant namely Jitendra Thakur is directed to be released on bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand)
with two surities of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Nagar Untari/or his successor Court in connection with Nagar
Untari P.S Case No. 139 of 2019 corresponding to G.R Case
No. 886 of 2019.
15. Thus, I.A No. 10102 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated: 13.10.2025
Avinash/
