2025:JHHC:26064 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 297 of 2025 Aman Kumar Jaiswal, Aged about 27 years, Son of Sunil Jaiswal, Resident of Village-Hesapora, P.O.-Gola, P.S-Rajrappa, Dist- Ramgarh, Jharkhand …… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ……. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP For the Informant : None ----------- 04/Dated:27th August, 2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Ms. Kusum Kumari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in B.P No.47 of 2025, arising out of SC/ST Ramgarh P.S Case No.05 of 2023, instituted under sections 376, 504, 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3 (2) (va) and 3(1) (r) of the SC/ST Act by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. As per F.I.R, the appellant is alleged to have established physical relationship with the informant-Victim girl on the pretext of marriage several times from the year 2018 till 2022 and even an agreement was executed between both the sides regarding marriage. However, on 04.012.2022 while the Victim girl-informant went along with his sister and month to the house of the appellant then she was abused by his mother in the name of caste. 3. Heard Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State. None appears for the informant despite sending notice to the informant vide order dated 06.05.2025 passed by this Court 2025:JHHC:26064 2 but the informant did not appear on 08.07.2025, 11.08.2025 and even today i.e. 27.08.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that allegation against the appellant in the FIR are false and concocted. It is submitted that both the appellant and the Victim girl-informant are major. It is submitted that informant had established physical relationship with the appellant with her own consent and it was consensual relationship between the appellant and the informant and the informant is a major girl. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 21.01.2025 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant has deliberately established physical relationship with the informant Victim girl on the pretext of marriage for the last several years. It is submitted that Victim girl-informant during her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C has supported the case for establishing relationship with her by the appellant on the pretext of marriage and for making her Video viral. It is submitted that the informant in her subsequent statement at paragraph-4, Rajni Devi at paragraph-5 and Sangita Kumari at para-6 of the case diary have supported the allegation of committing rape against the appellant on the pretext of marriage. It is submitted that the police has submitted charge sheet against the appellant and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records, it appears that the informant and the appellant were in relationship since the year 2018 till November, 2022. 2025:JHHC:26064 3 7. It reveals that the informant was major girl aged around 23 years on the date of filing of FIR and the relationship between the parties was consensual for more than four years. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. 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. 9. In view of the above, the appellant namely, Aman Kumar Jaiswal is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in B.P No.47 of 2025, arising out of SC/ST Ramgarh P.S Case No.05 of 2023, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be his own relative. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in B.P No.47 of 2025, by the learned by Ms. Kusum Kumari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, is set aside. 11. Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.297 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-