Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2376 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 March, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                          (2026:JHHC:9056)



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (S. J.) No. 733 of 2025

            Sanjay Kumar Gupta, aged about 58 years, son of late Hira lal Gupta
            @ late Hira Lal Agarwal, resident of Agrasen Bhawan, Sector 1/B,
            Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS - Sector - 1, District - Bokaro.
                                                             ... ... ...Appellant
                                            Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand.
            2. XXX                                           ... ... ...Respondents
                                             ------

             For the Appellant         : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. V. S. Sahay, Addl. P.P.                      :
             For the Informant         : Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
                                       : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
                                             ------

                                          PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the

Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act with the prayer to set aside the order dated 07.08.2025 in M.C.A.

No. 1518 of 2025 passed by the learned A.J.C. - II - cum- Special

Judge, SC / ST Act, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.

SC / ST Case No. 53 of 2024 corresponding to SC / ST P.S. Case No.

62 of 2024.

3. The allegation against the appellant is that the appellant

developed friendship with the informant by assuring her to help her

in examination and service of Police and on that pretext, the

1 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 (2026:JHHC:9056)

appellant called the informant to Bokaro. Once the informant

reached Bokaro, the appellant disclosed his love for her and the

appellant further disclosed that his wife and child died in an

accident. Further, the appellant told the informant that if the

informant marries the appellant, the informant will be quite safe and

happy. It is admitted case of the informant that the informant lived

with the appellant in a quarter at Bokaro under the same roof for

approximately six months, and during that period, the appellant

made physical relationship with the informant. There is further

allegation that the appellant has taken Rs. 50,000/- from the

informant to purchase land for her but he has not handed over the

paper of the land purchased nor returned the amount of Rs. 50,000/.

When the informant asked the appellant to marry her, the appellant

refused for the marriage. There is further allegation that the

appellant and his sister told the informant to be "Coal Kukur" and

used filthy language against her. The informant informed the matter

to the Police but when Police refused to register an FIR, she filed

complaint case being Complaint Case No. SC / ST No. 53 of 2024 in

the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner - II - cum -

Special Judge, SC / ST, Ranchi which upon being referred to Police,

Ranchi, SC / ST P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024, was registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 318(4), 316(2), 308(2), 352,

351(2) (3) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (s) and 3 (1) (w) (i) of the SC /

2 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 (2026:JHHC:9056)

ST Act. After completion of investigation, Police submitted charge-

sheet, cognizance was taken, charge was framed and some of the

witnesses have also been examined during trial as submitted by the

learned counsel for the appellant.

4. During pendency of the trial, the appellant filed a regular bail

application and the learned Special Judge, SC / ST Ranchi, vide

order dated 07.08.2025 considered that the appellant is named in the

FIR and in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of

the B.N.S., the informant has stated of having physical relationship

with the appellant for seven years on the false pretext of marriage.

The learned Special Judge, SC / ST Cases, Ranchi, considered that

the involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence cannot be

ruled out at this stage and by that time, investigation was still going

on and thus considering, rejected the prayer of bail of the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at first, the

appellant lodged an online complaint on 19.07.2023 against the

informant and this case has been lodged much thereafter on

15.12.2024 as a counterblast. It is next submitted that the learned

Special Judge, SC / ST cases, failed to consider that there is

inordinate delay in lodging of the complaint. It is next submitted

that admittedly, the alleged physical relationship between the

appellant and the informant took place about five years prior to the

3 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 (2026:JHHC:9056)

filing of the complaint; which upon being referred to Police, the FIR

has been registered.

6. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC /ST Act

failed to consider that there was no specific date, time and place of

the alleged occurrence and also in absence of any allegation that the

appellant has told anything to the informant in a place within public

view, the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC / ST

Prevention of Atrocities Act, is not made out. It is next submitted

that the learned Special Judge also failed to consider that in absence

of any allegation that the appellant ever touched to the informant

without her consent and in the absence of the same, the offence

punishable under Section 3(1)(w)(i) is not made out. By relying upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr.

reported in (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 329, it is next submitted that

Paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment mandates that before a

complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the

Cr.P.C., he must exercise his remedy under sub Sections (1) and (3)

of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and he must make those averments in

the complaint and produce the documents in support of the same. It

is next submitted that in this case although the informant has

claimed to have informed the Police about the occurrence prior to

4 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 (2026:JHHC:9056)

filing the complaint but no document in respect of the same has been

produced anywhere.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant

by relying upon the order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan on

21.08.2024 in the case of Vijay Sharma & Another. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Another reported in (2024) : RJ - JD : 35171 that therein

it has been observed that in respect of the offences committed under

the Indian Penal Code before 01.07.2024, the offender can and has to

be dealt with and punished under Indian Penal Code even after

enforcement of the B.N.S. from 01.07.2024 and in this case as the

alleged offence was committed before 01.07.2024, Section 69 of the

B.N.S. which came into force only after 01.07.2024, cannot be pressed

into service. It is next submitted that the situation has changed as

charge-sheet has already been submitted, charge has already been

framed, some of the witnesses have already been examined but the

informant who has come to this Court to oppose the prayer for bail

and is opposing the same tooth and nail; for reasons best known to

her, has not yet examined herself as a witness. It is next submitted

that since admittedly the victim girl is a major woman of 35 years, as

is evident from description of her age mentioned in complaint by

herself, the offence punishable under Section 65 (1) of the B.N.S. is

not made out as such offence is applicable only when the rape is

committed on a women under 16 years of age and in this case, FIR

5 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 (2026:JHHC:9056)

was erroneously registered in respect of the offence punishable

under Section 65(1) of the B.N.S. and charge-sheet was erroneously

submitted in respect of such offence. It is lastly submitted that the

impugned order be set aside and the appellant be admitted to bail.

8. Learned Addl. P.P and learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the respondent no. 2 on the other hand vehemently opposed the

prayer of the appellant by relying upon the judgment of this Court

in the case of Arpan Barla & The State of Jharkhand passed in

Cr.M.P. No. 3227 of 2023 dated 05.02.2026, wherein this Court in

facts of that case, submitted that there was commission of rape and

subsequent thereto, the accused offered to marry the prosecutrix and

thereafter the prosecutrix left the house of the accused, was not

found to be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings. It is

next submitted that since the appellant committed sexual

exploitation on the victim, hence, the learned Special Judge has not

committed any illegality in refusing to grant bail to the appellant. It

is next submitted that the claim of the appellant that he does not

know the respondent, is false; because the appellant and the

informant visited Rajarappa and had a photograph also on

28.10.2019, hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been

committed by the learned Special Judge in rejecting the regular bail

application of appellant. It is lastly submitted that this appeal being

without any merit, be dismissed.

6 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 (2026:JHHC:9056)

9. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going

through the materials on record, it is pertinent to mention here that

the undisputed fact remains that the alleged occurrence took place at

least 5 to 7 years prior to the filing of the complaint which upon

being referred to Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the FIR

has been registered. It is the admitted case of the informant that she

was willingly living with the appellant for over six months and had

even admitted to having visited Rajarappa with him. Keeping in

view the long admitted relationship of the informant with the

appellant and the complaint has been field not immediately after the

physical relationship started but after 5 to 7 years thereafter and as

admittedly charge-sheet has been submitted, charge has been

framed, some of the witnesses have been examined but for the

reasons best known to her, the informant herself has not yet been

examined as a witness in the trial and also considering the fact that

the appellant has been in custody since 30.07.2025 as well as the

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that

this is a fit case where the appellant be admitted to bail subject to the

condition that the appellant will cooperate with the trial of the case

and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any

manner during the trial of the case.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 passed by

learned A.J.C.-II - cum - Spl Judge SC / ST Act, Ranchi, is quashed

7 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 (2026:JHHC:9056)

and set aside and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on

furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand)

with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned

A.J.C.- II - cum- Spl Judge, SC / ST, Ranchi, in connection with SC /

ST P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024, with the condition that he will cooperate

with the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb witnesses

of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th March, 2026 AFR/ Aditi Uploaded On - / /

8 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025