Allowed¶14

Ashish Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Apr 2024Cr.A(SJ)/93/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi — Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 93 of 2024, decided 15.04.2024 by Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. — Bail granted in offence under Sections 376, 341, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — false promise of marriage — consensual relationship plea — joint compromise petition — bail bond Rs.25,000 with two sureties — appeal against rejection of regular bail by Special Judge, Garhwa allowed.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned court below. ¶14

Ashish Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 93 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Ashish Yadav @ Ashish Kumar Yadav … …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sushma Kumari … …. Respondents -----

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

----For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP For the Informant : Ms. Geeta Kumari, Advocate -----

¶6

Oral Order

¶7

02 / Dated : 15.04.2024

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The order dated 17.01.2024, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act-cumAdditional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in Chiniya P.S. Case No. 49 of 2023 under Sections 376, 341, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) by which the regular bail of the appellant has been rejected, is under challenge in the instant criminal appeal.

¶10

As per the FIR, lodged by the Prosecutrix, she was aged 18 years and co-villager Ashish Yadav (appellant) on a false promise of marriage used to establish physical relationship with her and the last time such relationship was established on 9/10.07.2023 as a result she became pregnant. When she asked him to marry, he refused to marry her and threatened her with life.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix is major and as per the FIR itself, there was consensual physical relationship which continued for several months. There was no force or fraud on the part of the appellant to sexually exploit the victim. Furthermore, misunderstanding has now been settled and a joint compromise petition has been filed before the court below which will be apparent from the impugned order.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the informant, has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the consent given on a false promise of marriage by the prosecutrix would be immaterial.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant, named above, 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 each, to the satisfaction of learned Court below.

¶14

Criminal appeal stands allowed.

¶15

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶16

AKT/Satendra

Ashish Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Yadav 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

Santosh Kumar Ram Alias Santosh Alias Bhola Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Biru Alias Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Takbeer Khan Alias Taqbir Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Barun Singh Hembram and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Nandlal Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Chandra Saw Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.