Jharkhand High Court
Prabhat Ranjan @ Xxx vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2025:JHHC:31993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 568 of 2025
....
Prabhat Ranjan @ XXX, aged about 17 years, S/o Binod Das @
ABC, R/o Vill- Nagabad, PO + PS-Dumri, District-Giridih
...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A. P. P.
For the Informant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate
......
ORAL ORDER IN COURT
.....
04/15.10.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant under Section 101 (5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the order dated
02.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Giridih in M. C. A. No. 837 of 2025 whereby learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih has rejected the prayer for
bail of the juvenile- appellant in connection with Giridih
(Mahila) P. S. Case No. 02 of 2024 corresponding to Children
Case No. 04 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections
376 (N) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per the FIR, the appellant is alleged to have
established physical relationship on the pretext of marriage with
the victim girl -Informant for last two years and thereafter lastly
he met her on 06.01.2024. It is submitted that all of the family
members of the appellant were aware of their relationship.
However, the appellant switched off his mobile phone.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
2025:JHHC:31993
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence.
It is submitted that the allegation of establishing physical
relationship is not correct, rather the physical relationship was
established with consent of both the sides. It is submitted that the
victim girl is a major girl and she has refused for her medical
examination, which has come in para- 7 of the case diary. It is
submitted that the appellant is in custody since 22.01.2025 i.e.
for around nine (9) months and as such, he may be enlarged on
bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant
has induced the victim girl to establish physical relationship on
the pretext of marriage and later on he refused to marry with her.
It is submitted that witnesses namely Sukar Das and Bhola Das
in para- 150, 151 have stated that the appellant and his family
members had demanded dowry, four wheeler vehicle and cash
and which could not be paid by the family of the victim girl and
the marriage could not be settled and hence the prayer for bail of
the juvenile- appellant may be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the
submission of the learned counsel for the State, has submitted
that the appellant has prepared forged AADHAR Card of
Informant by showing him as husband of the victim girl. It is
submitted that although the victim girl could not be examined
medically due to certain reason. It is submitted that the victim
girl is still ready to marry with the appellant and hence, the
prayer for bail of the juvenile- appellant may be rejected.
2025:JHHC:31993
7. Having heard learned counsel for the both the sides and
from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the appellant and
the victim girl were in relationship for last two years as per their
own consent.
8. It appears that the victim girl has refused for her
medical examination.
9. It further appears that the appellant is in custody since
22.01.2025.
10. It is well settled by the Judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish Singh @ Soni v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2025) 4 SCC
197 that long consensual relationship between the parties may
not amount to commission of rape and the allegation of rape is
diluted.
11. However, physical relationship between the appellant
and the victim girl has been established with the consent of both
the sides.
12. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case
and also the fact that the appellant is in custody since
22.01.2025, the appellant namely Prabhat Ranjan @ XXX is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Giridih/or his Successor Court in M. C. A.
No. 837 of 2025 in connection with Giridih (Mahila) P. S. Case
No. 02 of 2024 corresponding to Children Case No. 04 of 2025
subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own
relative of the appellant and the appellant shall also file an
Undertaking before the learned Court below that he will not
2025:JHHC:31993
tamper with the evidences and will not give threat to the
prosecution witnesses, otherwise prosecution will be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation his bail and the appellant will submit
self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card and will also submit his
mobile number before the learned Court below, which he will
always keep active and will not change it, during the pendency
of this case, without prior permission of the Court and the
appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without
prior permission of the learned Court below.
13. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned order
dated 02.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Giridih in M. C. A. No. 837 of 2025 in connection with Giridih
(Mahila) P. S. Case No. 02 of 2024 corresponding to Children
Case No. 04 of 2025 is set aside.
14. Thus, the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 568 of 2025 is
allowed and stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated 15.10.2025
Kamlesh/
