2025:JHHC:29597 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No.3938 of 2025 Ranjeet Singh, S/o Late Lakhbinder Singh, aged about 34 years, resident of House Number-4 Prakash Nagar, Garurbasa, Near Buddha Vihar, Birsanagar, Hurlung, Hulung, P.O. Hurlung Branch, P.S. Golmuri-cum - Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, District -East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, Pin Code 831004. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate ------ 6/24.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as also learned counsel for the Informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for the alleged offences registered under Sections 376(2)(1), 354(c), 379, 506 of IPC, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Jamshedpur, in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No.06 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submits that the present case is the result due to a love and consensual sexual relationship. According to her, the marriage has been settled with the initiatives taken by the parents of the petitioner and the informant and the ceremonies or Roka, Sagun & Sawan Ka Tyohar were solemnized in presence of the both the families. She further submits that the informant is still ready to marry with the petitioner. However, with the interference of the family members, the 2025:JHHC:29597 2 girl has been put in RINPAS and the F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother. She then submits that the informant has been examined under Section 180 of BNSS, which is the part of the case diary, wherein she has fully supported the petitioner. She has further stated that she is ready to marry, but she is surprised, how she has been put in RINPAS. By way of referring the WhatsApp Chats, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, she submits that the nature of chat clearly suggests that the petitioner has not committed any overt act upon the girl and the FIR has been lodged by the mother of the girl. She further submits that in the counter affidavit, one medical certificate issued by Healing Minds has been annexed, which is dated 20.03.2023. She further submits that prima facie, this document is obtained with retrospective effect in view of the fact that on enquiry and from the internet, the petitioner has got the information that the said hospital was opened in the year 2025. In view of that, she submits that certain maneuvering has been made by the family members of the girl and in view of that false case has been filed against the petitioner and the petitioner is being harassed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case diary was called for earlier and in the case diary and the medical report issued by Davis Hospital is there wherein it stated that the girl is not fit to be examined in Court. She also refers the statement of the girl recorded under Section 180 of BNSS which is part of the case diary and submits that the medical report is contradictory to the 2025:JHHC:29597 3 statement of the girl. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner has exploited the girl and established the relationship and he has even made certain videos and due to those videos, the petitioner was blackmailing the girl. He further submits that the girl is not in her sound mind and for that she has been admitted in RINPAS and taking the benefit of her unsoundness, the petitioner has exploited her. He also submits that the certificate issued by Healing Minds clearly suggests that the girl is not in sound mind. He next refers to other documents annexed with the said counter affidavit. He produced the documents to suggest that the Healing Minds Hospital was operating prior to 2025. As such, the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 6. In view of the above submissions and looking into the impugned order, it transpires that after appreciating all these facts, the learned Sessions Judge was willing to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, he has withheld his hand considering the gravity of the allegation against the petitioner. 7. The Court has gone through the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS and reading the same, the Court finds that the mental status as recorded in the said statement it cannot be inferred that the person, who is not in sound mind will speak the facts like that. Further in Para-12 of the case diary the certificate issued by Davis Hospital is there, wherein it has been stated that the girl is not in a position to make statement before the Court. That certificate 2025:JHHC:29597 4 appears to be contradictory to the statement of Section 180 of BNSS of the girl. In the statement under Section 180 of BNSS, the girl has stated with clear terms that she wants to marry with the petitioner. She was surprised that how she was put in the RINPAS. At one point of time, she was found unconscious and thereafter she was in hospital. In the Counter affidavit, the certificate annexed is said to be issued by the Healing Minds Hospital is dated 20th March 2023, wherein in reply to that counter affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner herein the document annexed clearly suggests that the said hospital was opened in January 2025. The document produced in course of argument by the learned counsel appearing for the informant, the date is only to the effect, January 20, which clearly makes doubt that this document is not correct in view of the documents annexed with the reply to the counter affidavit by the petitioner. In the light of above discussions and in the light of finding of the learned Sessions Judge, it is clear that the girl still wants to marry with the petitioner and what has taken place between the petitioner and girl that was consensual in nature. 8. In the light of above discussion and further considering Section 28 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which states that a consent is not a consent, if such a consent is given by a person under fear or injury, or under a misconception of fact and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe that the consent was given in consequences of such fear or misconception. The facts discussed herein above, both the ingredients are not coming. There is 2025:JHHC:29597 5 distinction between the mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise and in view of that the Court has examined whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused, and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused or where an accused on account of circumstances, which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motive. It may also be noted that there may be occasions where a promise to marry was made initially but for various reasons, a person may not be able to keep the promise to marry. If such promise is not made from the very beginning with the ulterior motive to deceive her, it cannot be said to be a false promise to attract the penal provision of IPC or BNSS. Here in this case, the petitioner is still ready to marry the girl. At the same time, the girl is also ready to marry the petitioner. 9. In the light of above facts, reasons and analysis and in the attending facts and circumstances, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to 2025:JHHC:29597 6 surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order and on the event of his surrender / arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount of each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Jamshedpur, in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No.06 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 11. This Anticipatory Bail Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 24.09.2025 R.Kumar/ A.F.R