Raj Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

07/03.02.2026 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant, under Section 14A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.04 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 323, 376, 420 of I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), in which prayer for regular bail made on behalf of the appellant, namely Raj Kumar Yadav has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cumSpecial Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih.

¶14

2. As per F.I.R., the appellant is alleged to have established physical relationship with the Informantlady, who is a mother of two children and the appellant has sexually exploited her for a long period. The appellant is also alleged to have transferred Rs.50,000/- from the Bank Account of the Victim-informant to his Bank Account and had also taken Rs. 1,50,000/- from her in cash, which have not been returned to her till date. It is alleged that when the husband of the victim ladyInformant has found the appellant and the Informant lady in an objectionable condition, then he left her and has filed a Divorce Case bearing Case No. 33 of 2024. It is

¶15

1

¶16

alleged that the appellant had promised to marry the Informant, but he failed to keep his promise and hence, she tried to file an application before Jamua Police Station on 01.07.2024, but she was not allowed. Then, she sent an application to the Officer-in-Charge through Registered Post on 10.07.2024 and then she sent an application to the Superintendent of Police, Giridih by registered post on 18.07.2024 for lodging F.I.R. and when the F.I.R. was still not lodged, then she filed the present Complaint Case bearing No. 42 of 2024 on 17.08.2024 giving rise to F.I.R. bearing Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.04 of 2025.

¶17

3. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Mohua Palit, learned A.P.P. and Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the Informant. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated by the Informant. It is submitted that the allegations made against the appellant are false and concocted. It is submitted that the relationship between the appellant and the Informant was consensual. It is submitted that the Informant is a major lady and she is 32 years of age and a mother of two children. It is submitted that the allegation of taking Rs.50,000/- from the Bank account of the Informant and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in cash from her by the appellant is also not correct. It is submitted that there is no such finding during investigation. It is submitted that the appellant has not made any promise to marry the Informant, however the appellant is ready to give Rs.50,000/- to the Informant. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since

2

Neutral Citation No.

( 2026:JHHC:2831 )

07.07.2025 and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail

¶22

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim lady on the pretext of marrying her. It is submitted that the victim lady, in her subsequent statement, recorded at Para 8, and her statement recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. has supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the witnesses, namely Charku Turi, Ashok Turi, Sunil Kumar Soni and Rekha Devi, whose statements have been recorded in Paragraph 10, 11, 12 and 13 have also supported the prosecution case against the appellant. It is submitted that the Police has submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 420, 376/34 I.P.C. and hence, prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant may be rejected.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that the appellant has thoroughly exploited the Informant physically and mentally and promised to marry her. It is submitted that there was no consensual relationship between the appellant and the Informant. It is submitted that the appellant has taken her in confidence and established physical relationship with her with the promise to marry her and he has established physical relationship with the Informant on several dates, however, one day, her husband saw them in an objectionable condition and has left her and instituted a divorce case No. 33 of 2024 before the learned Principal Judge, Family

¶24

3

¶25

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:2831 )

¶26

Court, Giridih. It is submitted that the Informant has been left alone in the house. It is submitted that the appellant has got transferred Rs. 50,000/- from the Bank account of the Informant and Rs.1,50,000/- in cash from her and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R., the Case Diary and the records of this case and considered the submission of both sides.

¶27

8. It appears that Complaint Case No. 42 of 2024 was filed before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST)cum- Addl. Sessions Judge-I on 17.08.2024, although the Informant is said to have been in contact with the appellant since the year 2023.

¶28

9. It appears from the statement of the victim lady recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. that she has supported the prosecution case for establishing physical relationship with her by the appellant, but she has also stated that they had been living like husband and wife. 10. It appears that the witnesses, namely Charku Turi, Ashok Turi, Sunil Kumar Soni and Rekha Devi, whose statements have been recorded in Paragraph 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Case Diary, have supported the prosecution case against the appellant that the appellant has taken certain amount from the Informant.

¶29

11. Considering the fact that the relationship between the Informant and the appellant was consensual in nature and also considering the custody of the appellant and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant, namely Raj Kumar Yadav is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of

4

Neutral Citation No.

( 2026:JHHC:2831 )

the like amount each, in connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.04 of 2025, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih /or his Successor Court, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the appellant and the appellant shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court, to be paid to the Informant, at the time of furnishing the bail bonds.

¶34

12. The said amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) shall be disbursed by the learned Trial Court to the informant on filing of such an application before the learned Trial Court below. The Trial Court shall inform the Informant through the P.L.V. and hand over the same to her on proper identification.

¶35

13. Accordingly, order dated 21.08.2025, passed in M.C.A. No. 1482 of 2025, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih, in connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.04 of 2025 is set aside.

¶36

14. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 828 of 2025 is allowed with the above observations and directions.

¶37

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶38

s.m. Dated 03.02.2026

¶39

5

Raj Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Dilip Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kazi Najrul Islam Alias Kazi Nazrul Islam Alias Doctor Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Ohdar Vs State of Jharkhand

Abdul Khalak Ansari Alias Abdul Khalak@ Khalak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khalil Miyan Alias Khalil Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand