1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 775 of 2024 --------- Satish Kumar @ Satish Thakur @ Satish Kumar Thakur ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Victim ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : Mrs. Anjali Kumari, Amicus Curiae ---------- 10/25.06.2025 This Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.775 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 16.10.2024, passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 970 of 2024, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-SC/ST (POA) Act, Garhwa, by which prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant, namely Satish Kumar @ Satish Thakur @ Satish Kumar Thakur has been rejected in connection with Garhwa (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.490 of 2023, instituted for the offences under Section 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa. 2. As per F.I.R., the appellant is alleged to have induced the Informant for coming to a Hotel in the garb of verification of KYC and taken her to a lonely place and torn her clothes and forcibly committed rape upon her. The appellant is also alleged to have taken her naked photograph while she fell unconscious and had fled away. Later on, the appellant threatened the victim of making her photographs viral and also abused her in the name of her caste. 2 3. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned A.P.P. and Mrs. Anjali Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the allegation of committing rape upon the Informant and taking her naked photographs and threatening to make it viral are false and concocted. It is submitted that the Informant herself has given the said photographs to the Police and not by any other person. It is submitted that there is a delay of Four (04) days in lodging the F.I.R. It is submitted that the medical report of the victim girl would reveal that neither any injury nor any sign of rape was found. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 16.08.2024 and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the appellant has been named in the F.I.R. for committing rape upon the Informant, taking her naked photographs and for making it viral. It is submitted that said torn clothes and the naked photographs in soft copy have been seized by the Investigating Officer, which finds place in Paragraph 71 and 72 of the Case Diary and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Perused the F.I.R, Case Diary and records of this case. 3 7. It appears that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim lady in a hotel. 8. It appears that the Police, during investigation, has verified the hotel in question and has found the Aadhar Card of the appellant and it has also been stated by the employees of the said hotel that the appellant had stayed with one female. 9. It also appears that the I.O. has seized the Hard Copy of the naked photograph and soft copy in the Pen Drive of the Informant, which finds place in Paragraph 71 and 72 of the Case Diary. 10. It also appears that the Informant, during her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has also stated against the appellant for commission of rape upon her and she had instituted this case only after seeing such photographs taken from the Mobile Number- 8207778325 of the appellant, which was threatened to be made viral by the appellant. 11. It also appears from the Lower Court Record that two prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and the trial is in progress. 12. In view of the above and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage as the trial is at the fag end. 13. Accordingly, prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant, namely Satish Kumar @ Satish Thakur @ Satish Kumar Thakur is, hereby, rejected, however, learned Court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same, preferably, within a period of Six (06) months. 4 14. Thus, the order dated 16.10.2024, passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 970 of 2024, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-SC/ST (POA) Act, Garhwa is, hereby, affirmed. 15. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 775 of 2024 is dismissed. 16. Mrs. Anjali Kumari, learned counsel has been appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent No.2 as per Order dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) of this Court. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA for payment of appropriate remuneration to Mrs. Anjali Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae and be also sent to the learned Court below. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.