1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 226 of 2025 --------- Santosh Mondal ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Victim/Prosecutrix ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P. --------- 03/02.05.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant challenging the order dated 13.01.2025, passed in M.C.A. No. 648 of 2024, by Sri Santosh Kumar No.2, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jamtara, by which prayer for bail made on behalf of the Appellant, namely Santosh Mondal has been rejected in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 74, 76, 351(2), 351(3), 109 B.N.S. and for the offence under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of SC/ST Act. 2. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned counsel for the State. 3. The Informant has not appeared despite service of Notice upon her and a counter affidavit has been filed by the learned A.P.P. and in which it has been stated that Notice has been served upon the Informant-Victim-Prosecutrix. 2 4. It appears from the F.I.R. that while the Informant was preparing Khichdi for the children of the upgraded primary school, then the Appellant tried to drag her to another room and on her protest, he abused her in the name of her caste and started pulling her clothes, due to which her modesty was outraged and the Appellant also assaulted her, due to which blood started oozing out from her nose. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that allegations against the Appellant levelled in the F.I.R. are false and concocted. It is submitted that the occurrence took place on 24.10.2024, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.11.2024. It is submitted that due to personal dispute, the Informant has instituted this false case against the Appellant. It is submitted that the Informant had taken a friendly loan of Rs.25,000/- from the Appellant with the assurance to pay back within three months, but when the Appellant demanded money, the Informant had instituted this case against the Appellant. It is submitted that the Informant is in custody since 01.12.2024, i.e. for around Five (05) months and hence, the Appellant may be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the Appellant for outraging the modesty of a woman, i.e. the Informant by pulling her clothes and assaulting her and due to which she sustained bleeding injury on her nose. It is submitted 3 that the Informant has also supported her case during her subsequent statement recorded in Para 3 and one Bhim Hembrom, has also supported the case in his statement at Para 7 of the Case Diary and hence, the prayer for bail of the Appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R., Case Diary and records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It appears that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 24.10.2024, however, the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.11.2024, i.e. after a delay of Seven (07) days. 9. It also appears that though the Informant in her subsequent statement had supported her case in Para 3 of the Case Diary and one Bhim Hembrom, had also supported the allegation against the Appellant in Para 7 of the Case Diary, however, the other witnesses, namely Basanti Murmu and Prem Hembrom, whose statements are recorded at Para 8 and 9 of the Case Diary, have stated that they had merely seen the Informant in an injured condition and on asking the Informant had not stated as to what had happened, rather she stated that she had fallen on her own, however, later on, the Informant stated that the Appellant had outraged her modesty and abused her and hence, this Court is of the view that the F.I.R. is an afterthought one. 10. Considering that there is a delay of Seven (07) days in lodging the F.I.R. and the Appellant is in custody for about Five months, the Appellant 4 namely, Santosh Mondal is directed to be released on Bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024, to the satisfaction of Sri Santosh Kumar No.2, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jamtara. 11. Thus, the order dated 13.01.2025, passed in M.C.A. No. 648 of 2024, by Sri Santosh Kumar No.2, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jamtara in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024 is set aside. 12. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 226 of 2025 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.