2025:JHHC:21436 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 107 of 2025 ----- 1. Kesarwati Kumbhakar, W/o Uttam Kumbhakar 2. Madhuri Kumbhakar, W/o Late Anil Kumbhakar Both R/o Village Churda, Lachipur, PO & PS Patamda, Distt. Singhbhum East … …. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pastu Sahis, W/o Krishna Moihan Kumbhakar, R/o Nehru Colony, PO & PS Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Distt. Singhbhum East … …. Respondents With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 83 of 2025 ----- 1. Krishna Kumbhakar @ Krishna Mohan Kumbhakar, 2. Uttam Kumbhakar, Both S/o Late Akhil Kumbhakar, R/o Village Churda, Lachipur, PO & PS Patamda, Distt. Singhbhum East … …. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pastu Sahis, W/o Krishna Moihan Kumbhakar, R/o Nehru Colony, PO & PS Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Distt. Singhbhum East … …. Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Appellants : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : M/s Kumari Rashim & Vandana Bharti, APP For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate ----- Oral Order 06 / Dated : 01.08.2025 I.A. No. 1062 of 2025 in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 107 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellants in this interlocutory application which has been filed for condonation of delay of 99 days in filing the instant criminal appeal. Considering the grounds taken in this interlocutory application, the delay is condoned and the limitation petition is allowed. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) Nos. 107 of 2025 & 83 of 2025 Both these criminal appeals arise out of separate anticipatory bail applications being A.B.P. No. 511 of 2024 and A.B.P. No. 885 of 2024, which have been rejected. Since both these anticipatory bail applications arise out of the same case, therefore, they are heard together and will be disposed of by this common order. 2025:JHHC:21436 2 1. Both the criminal appeals have been filed under Section 14 A Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the order dated 10.06.2024 and 09.08.2024 passed in SC/ST Case No. 29 of 2021 under Sections 354 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(D)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby and whereunder, the anticipatory bails of all the appellants have been rejected. 2. As per the case of the complainant, appellant-Krishna Kumbhakar had been establishing physical relationship with the complainant under force and duress for a long time. When the topic of marriage was broached by the complainant, appellant- Krishna Kumbhakar used to make one excuse or the other. All the other accused persons were fully cognizant of these facts and they supported appellant-Krishna Kumbhakar. On 08.02.2019, marriage was solemnized in Jadugora Rankini temple but she was not allowed to stay in her matrimonial home. It is also alleged that Rs.50,000/ was duped from the account of her brother by accused nos.1 and 4. 3. Earlier Patamda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1044 of 2020 was lodged with regard to incidence of sexual assault and abusing the complainant by her caste name. The harassment by the appellant- Krishna Kumbhakar continued which led to filing of the present complaint. During enquiry, the complainant and two witnesses were examined. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that so far appellants in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 107 of 2025 are concerned, there is no allegation against them and they have been roped in this case, because they were related to appellant-Krishna Kumbhakar. Sections, as alleged, are bailable in nature save and except under Section 354 of I.P.C. and those under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will not apply for the reason that as per the version of the complainant, she was married to appellant-Krishna Kumbhakar and on the basis of the said marital status, a case for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2025:JHHC:21436 3 was also filed being Original Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2020. Further, as the case of the complainant is based that she was married to Krishna Kumbhakar, therefore, the question of application of Section 354 of I.P.C does not arise. 5. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the respondent no.2, have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail and submitted that the maintenance case has been dismissed by the Family Court and there are direct allegations against appellant-Krishna Kumbhakar of sexual assault which is of serious nature. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it appears that this is the second round of litigation. Earlier also, one Patamda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2020 was lodged by the complainant against appellant- Krishna Kumbhkar in which he has already on bail. It is also apparent that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed on behalf of the complainant on specific plea that she was legally married wife of appellant-Krishna Kumbhkar. Charge of sexual assault within matrimonial relationship is somewhat incompatible and hard to believe. As per the complaint, it was the complainant who had proposed the marriage after prolonged physical relationship. There is no averments in the entire complaint petition that the rape preceded and then promise of marriage was made. Under the circumstance the impugned orders are set aside. All the appellants named above in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of three weeks from the date of this order, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below in connection with ST/SC Case No. 29 of 2021. Both the criminal appeals are allowed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra