IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 245 of 2025 Kiran Topno D/O- Late Ashetan Topno, aged 28 years, Resident of Village- Toniya Rajatoli, P.O. & P.S.- Jaldega, District- Simdega, Jharkhand. --- --- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Parwez Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, Spl.P.P. 04/15.01.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Spl.P.P. representing the State. 2. Petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 52 of 2022 arising out of Jaldega P.S. Case No. 53 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.20 of 2022 for the offence registered under Section 3767, 506 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega. 3. Learned Legal Aid defence counsel has submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.11.2021 and trial of this case has commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined including the doctor but the trial of the case could not be concluded in absence of the examination of the victim. Further, it has been submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. without any cogent explanation in view of the fact that the alleged occurrence took place on 09.11.2021 and the F.I.R. has been instituted on 14.11.2021 and the ground taken by the prosecutrix for the said delay in institution of the F.I.R. is that her husband was not present, which is not very convincing because in such type of offences there was no occasion for causing delay in institution of the F.I.R when victim is a major woman aged about 29 years old at the time of alleged offence. It has also been argued that medical evidence did not support the case of prosecution 4. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has remained in custody for more than 3 years. 5. Based upon the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the 2 petitioner has submitted that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that it is an offence of sexual assault upon a married woman of 29 years and therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail and further it has also been pointed out that on earlier occasion the prayer of bail of this petitioner has been rejected by this Court but did not controvert this fact that the petitioner is in jail since 15.11.2021 and trial is still pending. 7. 7. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case. 8. In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner 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, Simdega in connection with S.T. Case No. 52 of 2022 arising out of Jaldega P.S. Case No. 53 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 20 of 2022, subject to the condition that petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the court below and he will remain present on each and every date of the criminal trial, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for cancellation of bail as per the provisions of law. (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty