[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Subodh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1531 of 2025
Subodh Kumar, aged about 26 years, Son of Jaydeo Sahu, Resident
of Village - Bargaon, P.O. + P.S. - Sisai, District - Gumla, Jharkhand.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate.
Ms. Sanjana Kumari, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate.
---------
th
Order No. 04/Dated: 18 February, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant
and learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. Aman Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the informant.
2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant
of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under
Sections 376 and 506 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 12 years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for
the offence under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C.
4. It has been alleged that the appellant had entered into the house
of the informant, who is a married lady and committed rape upon her.
It has further been alleged that photographs and videos were taken of
the informant and threatening was given to make viral the said videos
and photographs, if the informant does not allow the appellant to
establish physical relation with her.
5. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the evidence of P.W.-1 clearly reveals that there was
a love affair between the appellant and the victim. This fact gets
fortified by the screenshots in the Whatsapp, which has been
exhibited. Learned counsel submits that there has been an inordinate
delay of four months in institution of the first information report and
only when the husband of the informant came to know about the
clandestine affair of the informant with the appellant, the first
information report was instituted.
6. Mr. Aman Kumar, learned counsel for the informant has
opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the
appellant had on several occasions committed rape upon her. It has
been stated that only on account of the pressure created upon the
informant with respect to making videos and photos viral, the
informant was reluctant to lodge a case and therefore satisfactory
explanation has been submitted specifically with respect to the delay
in lodging the first information report. The defence has failed to prove
that there was consensual sexual relation between the appellant and
the informant.
7. Learned A.P.P. has also opposed the prayer for bail of the
appellant.
8. The evidence of P.W.-1 clearly reveals that the husband of the
informant was not present. The appellant had entered into the house
and established physical relationship with her on several occasions.
The tenor of the evidence of P.W.-1 clearly depicts about the
relationship between the informant and the appellant. This fact is
fortified by the screenshots of the Whatsapp, which have been
exhibited. In fact, the P.W.-1 has failed to state that after the first day
of occurrence, the appellant had ever established physical relationship
with her by blackmailing her with the photographs and videos which
he had purportedly taken, which furthermore indicates that the
informant has failed to explain the delay of four months in lodging the
first information report.
9. On consideration of aforesaid fact, we are inclined to admit the
appellant on bail.
10. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant,
named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the
like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 355 of 2023.
11. I.A. No. 1090 of 2026 stands disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
February 18, 2026
Sunil/
