( 2025:JHHC:32394 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 664 of 2025 ------ Dhanjeet Vishwakarma @ Dhanjeet Kr. Vishwakarma ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim .…..Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Ms. Priya Saw, Advocate : Ms. Diksha Rani, Advocate : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No: 04/ Dated: 15.10.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order dated 03.07.2025 passed in M.C.A No. 1722 of 2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad in connection with Dhansar P.S Case No. 95 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Section 69 of B.N.S and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. As per the F.I.R, the appellant is alleged to have induced the victim girl and established physical relationship with her in the garb of marriage and later on, he demanded Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lakh) from the victim girl to marry with her. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. ( 2025:JHHC:32394 ) 2 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the appellant and the victim girl were living in consensual relationship for the last four (04) years and she never objected. It is further submitted that the victim girl is a major girl. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 26.05.2025 and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim girl on the pretext of marriage for around four (04) years. It is submitted that the victim girl during her statement recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S has supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the appellant has induced the victim girl and established physical relationship with her for the last four (04) years and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submission of learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that the victim girl was induced by the appellant for marriage and later on, he went back on his promise and did not perform marriage with the victim girl and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the case diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears that the appellant and the victim girl were in consensual relationship for around four (04) years. ( 2025:JHHC:32394 ) 3 9. It appears that the victim girl during her statement recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S has supported her case against the appellant. 10. It also appears that the victim girl is a major lady aged around 30 years on the date of instituting the F.I.R and thus, she was a major lady on the first date of occurrence i.e. in the year 2020. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare versus State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SC Online SC 3471 has held that in long consensual relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix, the criminal liability attached to such false promise would be diluted after such a long passage of time. 12. Accordingly, the appellant namely Dhanjeet Vishwakarma @ Dhanjeet Kr. Vishwakarma is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad/or his successor Court in connection with Dhansar P.S Case No. 95 of 2025 subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be the own relative of the appellant and also subject to the condition and the appellant shall also file an Undertaking before the learned Court below that he will not tamper with the evidences and will not give threat to the prosecution witnesses, otherwise prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail and the appellant will submit self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card and will also submit his mobile number before the learned Court below, which he will always keep active and will not change it without prior ( 2025:JHHC:32394 ) 4 permission of the Court and the appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the learned Court below. 13. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed in M.C.A No. 1722 of 2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad in connection with Dhansar P.S Case No. 95 of 2025 is, hereby, set aside. 14. Thus, the Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 664 of 2025 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 15.10.2025 Avinash/