Allowed¶29

Jaydeo Ray v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Aug 2025Cr.A(SJ)/128/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail appeal; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 128 of 2025; Justice Sanjay Prasad; order dated 07.08.2025; POCSO Case No. 58 of 2023; Masalia P.S. Case No. 46 of 2023; MCA No. 747 of 2024; Special Judge (POCSO) Dumka; order dated 13.12.2024 set aside; S.376 IPC; Ss.4,8,10,12 POCSO Act; S.3(r)(s) SC/ST Act; custody since 24.07.2023; marriage with Informant; bail bond Rs.15,000 with two sureties; relative-bailor condition; peaceful conjugal life observation.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Jaydeo Ray directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each (one bailor to be a relative of the appellant) to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Dumka or his Successor Court; the order dated 13.12.2024 in MCA No. 747 of 2024 set aside; appeal allowed.

Jaydeo Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant Jaydeo Ray, in custody since 24.07.2023, should be enlarged on bail and the order dated 13.12.2024 in MCA No. 747 of 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Dumka set aside.

¶19

Court's answer

The court recorded that the appellant and the Informant have performed marriage and lived like husband and wife.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The court recorded that the appellant is in custody since 24.07.2023, a circumstance expressly considered in granting bail.

¶26

Key takeaways

Considering the facts and circumstances and the custody of the appellant, Jaydeo Ray was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be a relative of the appellant.ratio¶27
The order dated 13.12.2024 in MCA No. 747 of 2024 (Masalia Case No. 46 of 2023) passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra, the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Dumka in connection with POCSO Case No. 58 of 2023 is set aside.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 128 of 2025, decided 07.08.2025 (Sanjay Prasad, J.). Appeal by Jaydeo Ray against the order dated 13.12.2024 of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Dumka in MCA No. 747 of 2024, arising from POCSO Case No. 58 of 2023 (Masalia P.S. Case No. 46 of 2023) involving charges under S.376 IPC, Ss.4, 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act and S.3(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The FIR alleged marriage of the appellant with the Informant on 08.05.2023, physical relations, ouster from the matrimonial home, and threats. The appellant was in custody since 24.07.2023. Noting that the appellant and the Informant had performed marriage and lived as husband and wife, and considering the facts, circumstances and custody, the Court directed release on bail on a bond of Rs.15,000/- with two like sureties (one bailor to be a relative), set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and observed the desirability of a peaceful conjugal life.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:23444

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 128 of 2025

¶3

Jaydeo Ray, aged about 24 years, Son of Shishir Ray, Resident of Village-Makarampur, P.O. & P.S.- Masalia, District- Dumka … Appellant

¶4

… Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

XYZ …… Respondents

¶8

-----

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶10

-----

¶11

For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Jagat Kumar Soni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Virendra Kr. Advocate

¶12

…..

¶13

Order No. 04/ Dated: 07.08.2025

¶14

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order dated 13.12.2024 in MCA No. 747 of 2024 ( Masalia Case No. 46 of 2023) passed by the learned Special Judge ( POCSO ACT), Dumka in connection with POCSO Case No. 58 of 2023 instituted for offence under section 376 of the IPC and under Sections 4,8,10 and 12 of POCSO Act and section 3 (r) (s) of SC/ST Act.

¶15

As per the FIR the appellant is alleged to have the appellant performed marriage with the Informant on 08.05.2023 in Shiv Temple and took her to his house where he established physical relation with her and after 15 days she has been ousted from her matrimonial home and for which she made a complaint at Masalia Police Station. Thereafter the appellant remained in the house of the Informant for 13 days and tried to kill her by pressing her neck and threatened her dire of consequence and fled away from house of the Informant .

¶16

¶17

( 2025:JHHC:23444

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is admitted that the appellant has performed marriage with the Informant and was living as husband and wife. It is submitted that the appellant is still ready to keep the informant as his wife in his house and will not do any harm. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 24.07.2023 and hence the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned A P.P has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant has established physical relationship and later on performed marriage with her and ousted her from her matrimonial home and hence his prayer for bail may be rejected.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Informant after adopting the submission of learned A.P.P. has submitted that the appellant had abused the Informant in the name of her caste and ousted her from her matrimonial home. It is submitted that the appellant has threatened her from the jail by mobile No. 9060940967 which has been stated in para 10 of counter affidavit filed by the Informant. It is further submitted that the Informant never asked the appellant to live in house as Gharjamai . It is submitted that the appellant has harassed her by commenting that she belongs to lower caste and he used to abuse her in the name of her caste and humiliated her several times.

¶22

¶23

( 2025:JHHC:23444

¶24

In reply learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is still ready to keep the Informant as his wife. 8. Perused the Records and considered the submissions of both the sides.

¶25

It appears that the appellant and the Informant have performed marriage and lived like a husband and wife.

¶26

It appears that the appellant is in custody since 24.07.2023 .

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the custody of the appellant, the appellants namely Jaydeo Ray is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ramesh Chandra, the learned Special Judge ( POCSO ACT), Dumka or his Successor Court in connection with Masalia P.S. Case No. 46 of 2023, POCSO Case No. 58 of 2023 subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the relative of the appellant Therefore, in view of the above, the order dated 13.12.2024 in MCA No. 747 of 2024 ( Masalia Case No. 46 of 2023) passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra, the learned Special Judge ( POCSO ACT), Dumka in connection with POCSO Case No. 58 of 2023 is set aside.

¶28

It will be desirable that both the appellant and the Informant may have peaceful conjugal life.

¶29

Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 128 of 2025 is allowed.

¶30

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶31

Bibha/

¶32

Jaydeo Ray v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaydeo Ray 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

Surendra Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The S P Cbi Acb Ranchi And Ors.

Mustafa Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Subodh Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Yadav Alias Vivek Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jinendra Kumar Jain Alias Jainandra Kr.Jain Vs State of Jharkhand through CBI

Baby Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand