IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10849 of 2024 Vipin Kujur aged about 34 years son of Late Sita Kujur @ Sitaram Kujur, resident of village Katai Toli, P.O. Nawadih, P.S., Dumri, District Gumla. --- --- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Akshay Yadwendra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. 02/03.01.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State. 2. Petitioner is an accused in connection with Hazaribag Mahila Sadar P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024 for the offence registered under Section 376, 420 and 504 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Hazaribag. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gist of allegation as narrated in the F.I.R is that the informant(Victim) had been establishing physical relationship with the petitioner since 2014 under the promise of marriage. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a Constable in Jharkhand Police and petitioner and the victim were acquainted with each other since 2014 and thereafter under the promise of marriage physical relationship was established between both of them which continued for a long period of time and after a lapse of about 10 years the case has been instituted for the offence under Section 376, 420 and 504 of the IPC. 5. It is submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence under the aforesaid sections is made out in view of the fact that petitioner and the victim had been in physical relationship continuously for almost 10 years on the promise of marriage and the victim is a major woman aged about 31 years. 6. It has further been pointed out that petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2024 and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted on 26.11.2024 and, therefore, possibility of tampering with the 2 evidence is very remote. Further, it is pointed out by referring to para 14 of the bail petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 7. Based upon the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that it is offence of committing rape under the promise of marriage since the petitioner had established physical relationship with the victim by temporizing her under the promise of marriage and, therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he did not controvert the fact that petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2024 and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted on 26.11.2024. 9. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case. 10. 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. 11. 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Hazaribag Mahila Sadar P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024, subject to the condition that petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the court below and he will remain present on every and each date of the criminal trial, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for cancellation of bail. (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty