Kuldeep Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7485 of 2024

Kuldeep Oraon, S/o Kirani Oraon, aged about 23 years, R/o Village- Bogadag (Nawada), P.S. +P.O.- Herhanj, Dist- Latehar- 829202, Jharkhand

¶3

--- --- Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate

¶7

Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.

¶8

04/03.09.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

¶9

Petitioner is an accused in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 181 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 320 of 2024 for the offence registered under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gist of allegation as narrated in the F.I.R is that the victim woman aged about 21 years alleged that she was having love affairs with this petitioner since last 3 years and they had been establishing physical relationship under the pretext of marriage. But thereafter, when this petitioner did not respond to her mobile call, then the case has been instituted by her. It is submitted that no offence under Section 376(2)(n) is made out in view of the fact that victim is admittedly 21 years old and she had been establishing physical relationship with the petitioner voluntarily and willingly under the pretext of marriage, as evident from the F.I.R itself and when the petitioner did not respond to her call then this case has been lodged. It is further pointed out that during pendency of this case, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and a joint compromise petition to that effect has also been filed before the court of C.J.M., Latehar, which is also annexed along with the instant bail application. Further, it has also been pointed out that petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2024 and charge-sheet in this case has been

¶11

submitted, therefore, possibility of tempering with the evidence is very remote.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that it is heinous offence committed by the petitioner and therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case.

¶14

In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the petitioner named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 181 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 320 of 2024, subject to the condition that petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the court below and he will remain present on every and each date of the criminal trial, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for cancellation of bail.

¶16

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶17

A.Mohanty

¶18

2

Kuldeep Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Alias Anil Rajput Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karimul Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ankush Vastayayan Alias Ankush Vatsyayan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shriram Angariya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kunti Bhunini Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhutnath Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand