Allowed¶22

Pappu Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Mar 2025Cr.A(SJ)/762/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; Section 69 BNS 2023; promise to marry; deceitful means; consent; Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) SC/ST (POA) Act 1989; Facebook friendship; pregnancy; refusal to marry; charge-sheet filed; no criminal antecedents; bail bond Rs.25,000 with two sureties; Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2024; Chatra; Misc. Criminal Application No.1263 of 2024; bail rejection quashed; Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 762 of 2024; single judge (Navneet Kumar, J.), decision date 10 March 2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned bail-rejection order dated 07.10.2024 quashed and set aside; appellant to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the condition that he cooperates in the trial. ¶22

Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal against rejection of the appellant's regular bail prayer should be allowed and the appellant enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

In view of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, the Court found it just and fair to enlarge the appellant on bail.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 07.10.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1263 of 2024 rejecting bail is quashed and set aside.

¶21

Key takeaways

The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to cooperation in the trial, failing which the trial court may cancel bail as per law.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail granted; appeal allowed. High Court of Jharkhand (Navneet Kumar, J.), by order dated 10.03.2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 762 of 2024, quashed the order dated 07.10.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chatra rejecting regular bail in Misc. Criminal Application No.1263 of 2024 arising from Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 registered under Sections 69, 351(2), 352/3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Case based on allegation that the appellant, aged about 19, established a physical relationship with the major victim informant through Facebook friendship under a promise of marriage and refused to marry when she became pregnant. Appellant's contention that no identity was suppressed and no deceitful means adopted was treated as persuasive; appellant in custody since 31.08.2024, charge-sheet filed, and prosecution did not controvert absence of criminal history. Appellant directed to be released on bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two like sureties, conditional on cooperation in the trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 762 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Pappu Yadav, aged about 19 years, son of Chandra Yadav @ Chandradeo Yadav, resident of Village-Kadle, P.O. & P.S. Simariya, District-Chatra.

¶4

... ... Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Anjali Kumari, D/o Gajo Bhuiyan, R/o Kandi Napal, Rajpur Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Rajpur, Jharkhand …… Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶10

-------For the Appellant : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, APP For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate --------

¶11

Order No. 05/ Dated: 10^th March, 2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned APP assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶13

The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cumSpecial Judge, (SC/ST Act), Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.1263 of 2024, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 registered under Sections 69, 351(2), 352/3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3(1) (r) (s) (w) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶14

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that admittedly, the victim informant is a major woman and both the appellant and the victim informant had been in the friendship through Facebook and thereafter they established the physical relationship under the promise of marriage.

¶15

It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that both have been making the physical relationship several times and when she became pregnant, the appellant is alleged to have denied to marry with her and then this case is said to have been instituted. In this view of matter it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that no offence

¶16

under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 is attracted in view of the fact that it is not a case of making promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling the same because he did not suppress any identity and as such it is not a case that the appellant is alleged to have adopted deceitful means to take her consent.

¶17

Further, it has been pointed out that this appellant is in custody since 31.08.2024 and charge-sheet has been submitted and possibility of tampering the evidence is very remote and he has no criminal history and he is ready to cooperate in the trial of the case and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer for regular bail and stated that it is a clear cut case that the appellant had established the physical relationship under the pretext of marriage and when she became pregnant, he refused to marry with her and then this case was instituted and therefore it is thoroughly covered under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 but did not controvert this fact that there is no criminal history against this appellant.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and fair to enlarge the appellant on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the order dated 07.10.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1263 of 2024 in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶22

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶23

In consequence thereof, the appellant 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-

¶24

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 762 of 2024

¶25

Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Chatra in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned trial Court for the cancellation of bail as per the provisions of law.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of

¶27

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶28

Basant/S.Das

¶29

¶30

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 762 of 2024

Pappu Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu 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

Birendra Sinha Alias Birendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Damodar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bipin Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Mandal @ Rahul Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Alias Vikash Kumar Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Pathak Alias Dilip Kumar Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand