Krishna Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Krishna Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner Krishna Gope enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024, subject to conditions that he cooperates in the criminal proceedings and remains present on every trial date, failing which the learned Court below may pass appropriate order for cancellation of the bail as per provision of law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused under Section 376 IPC in Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024, should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024.

Ratio / Principle

The bail grant is conditional on the petitioner cooperating in the criminal proceedings pending in the Trial Court and remaining present on each and every date of the criminal trial as and when required.

Key takeaways

The court granted bail in light of the 'forceful submission' advanced on behalf of the petitioner and under the facts and circumstances of the case, after hearing both the petitioner's counsel and the State's A.P.P.; it did not itself adjudicate the disputed claims regarding the victim's age or consent.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL LAW — BAIL APPLICATION ALLOWED — RAPE (S.376 IPC): In B.A. No. 6389 of 2024 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Justice Navneet Kumar, order dated 02 September 2024), petitioner Krishna Gope, accused in Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024 registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, was directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each. Counsel for the petitioner contended the adult victim had been in a five-year voluntary relationship under the pretext of marriage and that a charge-sheet had been submitted (custody since 29.04.2024); the State's A.P.P. countered that the victim was a minor when physical relationship first occurred under promise of marriage. Acting on the petitioner's 'forceful submission' and the facts of the case — without adjudicating the disputed age/consent claims — bail was made subject to cooperation in the criminal proceedings and presence on each trial date, failing which the Court below may cancel the bail as per provision of law. No precedent was cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6389 of 2024

Krishna Gope

... … Petitioner

Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. --------

Order No. 05 / Dated 02^nd September, 2024

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the victim had been in the physical relationship with this petitioner since last five years under the pretext of marriage and when the victim came to know that this petitioner was going to marry to another girl then this case was instituted. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that victim is a major girl and she had been voluntarily and willingly in the physical relationship with this petitioner under the pretext of marriage and therefore no offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is made out. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2024 and petitioner is a young boy, working as a labour in gas-agency. Chare-sheet in this case has been submitted and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that it is a grave offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. and when the first time the accused established physical relationship with the victim, she was minor under the promise of marriage and therefore it is a serious offence and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case.

In light of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and under the facts and circumstances of this case, this petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of Learned Learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024, subject to the condition that the petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court and he will remain present on each and every date of the criminal trial as and when required, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned Court below for the cancellation of the bail as per the provision of law.

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Basant/S. Das

2 B.A. No 6389 of 2024