Bharat Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2025)

Bharat Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to surrender before the court below within four weeks and, upon surrender/arrest, to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Latehar, in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 249 of 2023, subject to conditions that one bailer be a close relative of the petitioner and the other a resident of the State of Jharkhand having sufficient landed property (or share therein) in his/her own name or that of ancestors, supported by an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating the share in the property.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Latehar P.S. Case No. 249 of 2023 registered under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 IPC, deserves anticipatory bail under Sections 438 and 440 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

Since the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the police did not find it necessary to arrest the petitioner during investigation, the court finds no occasion to reject the anticipatory bail application.

Ratio / Principle

The fact that the parties were major and stayed together for two years was taken into account in favour of allowing the anticipatory bail application.

Key takeaways

Anticipatory bail allowed: petitioner directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks, and upon surrender/arrest to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Latehar, in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 249 of 2023, subject to surety conditions (one bailer a close relative, the other a Jharkhand resident with sufficient landed property/share therein supported by affidavit).ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL — Sections 438 and 440 Cr.P.C. — Offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 IPC (Latehar P.S. Case No. 249 of 2023) alleging rape and cohabitation for two years on the false pretext of marriage, pregnancy, birth of a child and subsequent desertion — Both parties were major; petitioner admits he is the father of the child — Charge-sheet already submitted and police did not consider arrest necessary during investigation — Held, when the petitioner was not arrested during investigation, there is no occasion to reject the anticipatory bail application — Application allowed: petitioner to surrender within four weeks and, upon surrender/arrest, to be enlarged on bail on bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Latehar — Conditions: one bailer to be a close relative, the other a resident of Jharkhand possessing sufficient landed property or share therein, with affidavit of share filed before the Trial Court. (Ananda Sen, J.)

2025:JHHC:16135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1418 of 2024

Bharat Kumar, son of Dashrath Saw, resident of village- Ichak, P.O Ichak, P.S. Balumath, District- Latehar, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner(s).

..... Petitioner(s).

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s).

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, A.P.P. For pthe Informant Ms. Nirupama, Advocate.

…..... 17/19.06.2025: This anticipatory bail application under Section(s) 438 and 440 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Section(s) 376(1), 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 IPC.

Heard the parties at length and had gone through the documents, annexed along with this application.

Opportunity was given to the State as well as informant to oppose the bail, which they availed and opposed.

It is alleged the rape was committed upon the victim and thereafter they started staying together for two years on the false pretext marriage. It is also the case that the victim became pregnant and a child was born. The petitioner, thereafter did not marry the victim rather had deserted her.

During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties were major at the time of occurrence and the allegation of rape is absolutely false as in fact, they were in love and resided together for two years, which is an admitted case of the informant also. He admits that the petitioner is the father of the child. He further submits that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner.

The parties are major and they stayed together for two years. The fact which cannot be lost sight is that the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner. The police did not find it necessary to arrest the petitioner during investigation. When the petitioner was not arrested during investigation, I find no occasion to reject this application.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the court below is directed to enlarge him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Latehar, in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 249 of 2023, subject to condition that one of the bailers should be close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his/her name or in the name of his/her ancestors in which he/she is having share and to that effect, he/she has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his/her share in the property.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Anu/-C.P.-3