Jharkhand High Court
Suman Verma @ Suman Kumar Aged About 28 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2025:JHHC:28069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.462 of 2025
....
Suman Verma @ Suman Kumar aged about 28 years S/O Satish
Verma, Resident of Village- Goswami Mohalla, Matwari P.O. &
P.S.-Kora, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
......Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Victim (Detail in Sealed Cover)
......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.PP
For the Informant : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate
......
th
Order No.06/10 September 2025
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for setting aside the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Sri
Tarun Kumar, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI-Cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh in Misc. Criminal Application
No.994/2025, arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.12/2025,
registered for the offences under Sections 69,115(2),351(2),352 of
BNS 2023 and under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. As per the FIR, the appellant is said to have established
physical relationship with the victim girl for the last eleven (11)
years on the pretext to perform marriage with her. It is alleged that
he had even paid the hotels bills. It is also alleged that when the
victim girl had put pressure upon the appellant for marrying with
her and then the family members of the appellant had abused her in
the name of her caste. It is also alleged that the appellant was going
to marry another girl on 30.04.2025 but the uncle of the appellant
had threatened her and said necessary action may be taken.
2025:JHHC:28069
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl.PP as well as learned counsel for the Informant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and
not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the allegations
against the appellant to marry with the victim girl is not correct. It
is submitted that the appellant and the victim girl had established
physical relationship with each other for the last 10-11 years and
there was consensual relationship between both the sides. It is
submitted that the appellant has not abused the Informant in the
name of her caste. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody
since 13.05.2025 and hence he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Spl.PP has opposed the prayer
of bail and has submitted that the appellant has physically and
sexually exploited the victim girl for the last 10-11 years by
promising to marry with her and he has not married with her. It is
submitted that the victim girl during recorded her statement and
supported the prosecution case that the appellant has established
physical relationship upon her. It is submitted that the victim girl
has stated in her re-statement in para 03 of the Case Diary has
supported this fact and the witnesses namely Akash, Nirmala Devi,
Ritesh Kumar and Khushihal Ram, who are the family members of
the Informant and independent witnesses namely Shakti Kumar
and Sanjay Kumar Ram, whose statement have been also recorded
at Para 80,81,82 and 83 of Case Diary, have supported the case of
the victim girl and para 142 of the CDR of the mobile phone of the
both appellant and informant have been filed and chargesheet has
been submitted against him and hence the prayer of bail of the
appellant may be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the
2025:JHHC:28069
submission of learned Spl.PP, has further submitted that the
Informant is still ready to marry with the appellant and the
appellant may be directed to marry with her. It is submitted that the
appellant has physically exploited her on the promise of marriage
for last around eleven (11) years and he has not fulfilled his
promise of marriage. It is submitted that there are several
documents to support the relationship between the appellant and
the informant and hence the prayer of bail of the appellant may be
rejected.
7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from
perusal of the records of this case, it appears from the FIR that the
Complainant-Informant was having in physical relationship with
the appellant for the last around eleven (11) years.
8. It further appears that the appellant had not abused the
victim girl in the name of her caste.
9. It also appears that the during the period of eleven years
no complaint has been filed by the Informant against the appellant.
10. It has been held in the case of judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Yadav Versus State
of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 INSC 151 and in the
case of Mahesh Damu Khare Versus The State of Maharashtra &
Another reported in 2024 INSC 897 that the delay in lodging
causing such case dilutes the prosecution case.
11. It has been held in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare
Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2024 INSC
897 In paragraph 30,31 and 32 which read as follows:-
"Para:-30 Further, it appears that discontinuance of
financial support to the complainant, rather than the
alleged resiling from the promise to marry by the
appellant appears to be the triggering point for making
the allegation by the complainant after a long
2025:JHHC:28069
consensual relationship for about nine years."
"Para:-31 In our view if criminality is to be attached to
such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated, it
can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope
for imputing criminality to such long term relationships
after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made
even at a belated stage to drag a person in the
juggernaut of stringent criminal process. There is
always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an
otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the
Court must also be mindful."
"Para:-32 It is evident from the large number of cases
decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as
discussed above that there is a worrying trend that
consensual relationships going on for prolonged period,
upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised
by invoking criminal jurisprudence."
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
also considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely
Suman Verma @ Suman Kumar is directed to be released on bail,
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.Fifteen thousand (Rs.15.000/-) with
two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction Sri Tarun
Kumar, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI-Cum-Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh, or his Successor Court in connection with
Misc. Criminal Application No.994/2025, arising out of Mahila
P.S. Case No.12/2025.
13. Thus, the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Sri
Tarun Kumar, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI-Cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh in Misc. Criminal Application
No.994/2025, arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.12/2025 is set
aside.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.462 of 2025 is
allowed.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
