Vivek Yadav Alias Vivek Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:24610

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 96 of 2025

¶3

….

¶4

Vivek Yadav @ Vivek Kumar Yadav, Son of Sri Arjun Yadav, aged about 19 years, resident of Village-Alagdiha, Ward No. 06, PO- Makatpur, PS- Jainagar, District- Koderma ……Appellant Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Victim ..…Respondents

¶7

-----

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶9

-----

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Senior Advocate Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate Ms. Anushka Swadha, Advocate

¶11

12/07.08.2025 The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 96 of 2025 has been filed by the appellant under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 by challenging the order dated 16.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Koderma in Misc. Cri. Application No. 930 of 2024 arising out of Koderma (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024 corresponding to Special SC/ST Case No. 04 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 341/323/354/376 (1)/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (s), 3 (1) (w) (i) & (ii) and 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 66A/67/67A of the Information Technology Act by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶12

As per the FIR instituted on 02.09.2024, the appellant is alleged to have committed bad acts against the Informant for the last two (2) years and for which she had complained to his parents against him. Thereafter the appellant started abusing her by

¶13

¶14

2025:JHHC:24610

¶15

sending WhatsApp message on her mobile and thereafter on 07.05.2024, he had forcibly committed rape upon her in the name of preparing video and threatened her to make her video viral. It is also alleged that he sent her several messages on her mobile and threatened to further commit rape upon her.

¶16

Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ashish Gautam, learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2 assisted by Ms. Anushka Swadha, Advocate. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the appellant was having love affairs with the prosecutrix Informant for last two (2) years and this is a case of Honey Trap and the Informant was blackmailing the Appellant for fulfilling the demands of money. It is submitted that the husband of the Informant is a disabled person and not able to discharge the matrimonial obligation and as such the Informant came in contact with the appellant and they were having love affairs for last two (2) years and she has established physical relationship with the appellant with her own consent. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place on 07.05.2024 and the information was given on 11.06.2024, but FIR was not instituted by the police, rather the victim lady-Informant had herself stated before the police not to take action against the appellant. Thereafter, on the insistence of Mahila Samaj Samittee, the FIR was lodged on 02.09.2024 against the appellant. It is submitted that even show cause has been filed by then Officer- In-charge, Bajranj Oraon

¶17

¶18

2025:JHHC:24610

¶19

before the Superintendent of Police, Koderma and in which he has described about the relationship between the Appellant and the Informant of this case and he has also attached the photocopy of CDR details of the mobile of the Appellant as well as the Informant. It is further submitted that even if so called abuse in the name of her caste was done, but the same was not in public view and hence, no case under Section of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 26.10.2024 and one witness i.e. husband of the Informant has been examined so far during the trial and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant had earlier misbehaved with her on various occasions and thereafter he has committed rape upon the victim lady i.e. the Informant on 07.05.2024 and threatened her of dire consequences. However, learned counsel for the State has further submitted that call details also reveals that the appellant and the Informant used to do long chat for several hours since last two (2) years. However, it is further submitted that the appellant had sent abusive messages to the Informant on several occasions, which is mentioned in para-29 of the case diary and hence prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2, after adopting the submission of the learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that the victim lady was medically examined after four months and hence, no sign of rape was found. It is further submitted that there was no love affairs between the Informant and the appellant and the Informant is maintaining her disabled husband and children for the last four (4) years. It is

¶22

¶23

2025:JHHC:24610

¶24

further submitted that the appellant has threatened the Informant on several occasions and hence prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

¶25

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and from going through the case diary, it reveals that the appellant had misbehaved with the victim lady-Informant on several occasions and finally on 07.05.2024, the appellant has forcibly committed rape upon her in her shop and threatened her of dire consequences by making her video viral of her indecent pictures.

¶26

It appears that the earlier the victim lady had lodged the FIR on 11.06.2024 i.e. after delay of one month, but even the police had not instituted the FIR. Thereafter this Court has called the Superintendent of Police, Koderma and Officer In-charge of the concerned Police Station in person before this Court to file the explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. The Superintendent of Police, Koderma had appeared in person on 14.07.2025 and informed before this Court on 14.07.2025 that there was a negligence on the part of the Officer In-charge Bajrang Oraon and necessary action has been taken against him. However, the said Bajrang Oraon Officer In-charge has filed explanation.

¶27

This Court does not appreciate the conduct of the Officer In-charge, Bajrang Oraon for giving certificate of love affairs between the appellant and the Informant-Victim Lady as he was an Investigating Officer and he should not indulge in other activities, if any, between the parties.

¶28

It reveals from the FIR that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim lady forcibly, who was managing the shop for last four years and having disabled husband and maintaining her livelihood by running a shop.

¶29

¶30

2025:JHHC:24610

¶31

It appears that Informant in her restatement at para 02 and her husband namely Ram Pujan Das in his statement at para 03 have supported the allegations in the FIR. It appears from explanation of the said Bajrang Oraon addressed to S. P., Koderma that FIR was not lodged on the request of the Informant. However, he also stated that there was love affairs between the Informant and the Appellant.

¶32

It also reveals from the WhatsApp Chat sent by the appellant by his Mobile Nos. 7061830664 and 9905304438 to the Mobile No. 7856079823 of the Victim Lady i.e. the Informant that he has sent several abusive messages in indecent manner on various dates.

¶33

It has been informed that the Trial has begun and one witness has been examined so far.

¶34

Considering the facts and circumstances of this Case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage.

¶35

However, the learned Court below is directed to expedite the trial.

¶36

Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 96 of 2025 is dismissed and the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Koderma in Misc. Cri. Application No. 930 of 2024 arising out of Koderma (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024 corresponding to Special SC/ST Case No. 04 of 2024 is, hereby, upheld.

¶37

Thus, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 96 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶38

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶39

Kamlesh/

¶40

Vivek Yadav Alias Vivek Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Yadav Alias Vivek Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Jaydeo Ray 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