[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Suraj Kumar Goswami @ Suraj Kumar Bharti vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:8278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2370 of 2026
Suraj Kumar Goswami @ Suraj Kumar Bharti, son of Avdesh Kumar Goswami
@ Avdesh Kumar Bharti, Resident of Village New Murli Nagar, New Shiv
Mandir, PO PS Saraidhella, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
For the State: Md. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
----
02/24.03.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State.
2. By way of this bail application, the petitioner prays for grant of
regular bail in connection with Dhansar Police Station Case No.115 of 2025,
registered for offences alleged under Sections 376(2)(n), 312, 420, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. First Information Report being Dhansar Police Station Case
No.115 of 2025 was registered on the basis of written report filed by the victim
informant. It has been narrated that while she was working as sales person in
Golden Showroom, Memco More, she met with the petitioner and their
friendship developed in love. It is alleged that the petitioner assured her to
marry. It is alleged that first time the petitioner established physical relation
with the informant at her home situated at Manaitand when nobody was
present at home. It has been alleged that the petitioner also established
physical relation thereafter also at Rose Hotel, Rajgang and he regularly used
to call the petitioner to Red Rose Hotel, where he used to administer
sedatives and establish physical relation with the informant. Whenever matter
of marriage was raised, he used to give assurances. It has also been alleged
that the petitioner also took about Rs.8-9 lakh from the informant, which were
out of the retirement amount of her father, who had retired from BCCL, saying
that soon he would construct home and solemnize marriage. It is also alleged
that the victim-informant was also pregnant during this period for two-three
times and every time abortion was carried. Informant has also stated that
petitioner's mother Neelam Devi, her husband Awdhesh Bharti, sister Rinku
Goswami and brother Prakash Goswami were also involved in extracting
money from informant's father. They also used to give assurance that they
would very soon take her as their daughter-in-law. A complaint was also made
with Women Police Station where also the petitioner, his mother, sister,
2026:JHHC:8278
brother came and compromised saying that they would very soon solemnize
their marriage. It has been alleged that the petitioner and his family members
always used to financially exploit the informant and always took gifts like gold
chain, silver bracelet etc. After compromise in Women Police Station also, it
has been alleged that, the petitioner had established physical relation with the
informant at a Hotel opposite Madhurima Banquet Hall situated at Topchanchi
Road. Informant has alleged that the petitioner has always cheated her and
took money from her in the garb of marrying her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the
allegations in the First Information Report would show that the petitioner and
informant both are major and they were in relationship since long. He submits
that in the entire First Information Report, there is nothing to show that the
petitioner had used any force or coerced the informant to undergo abortion.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. From the petition and from the arguments of the parties, I find that
both the informant and the petitioner are major. It also appears from the
allegations in the First Information Report that there existed love affair
between the informant and the petitioner and there was consensual
relationship. I also do not find anything to suggest that the abortion was
forceful or informant was in any manner coerced to go for the same. The
informant herself has stated that she and petitioner had developed love.
7. Considering the nature of allegation and also considering that the
physical relationship was consensual, I am inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner. Petitioner, namely, Petitioner, namely, Suraj Kumar Goswami @
Suraj Kumar Bharti, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with
Dhansar Police Station Case No.115 of 2025, subject to the condition that one
of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner, having sufficient
landed property in his/her own name within the State of Jharkhand.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Ranchi
Dated 24th March, 2026
Kumar/Cp-03
Uploaded on 24.03.2026
