Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23446 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 373 of 2025 ---------- Kuldip Kumar Sahu @ Kuldeep Sahu @ Kuldeep Kumar Sahu ..… Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Victim/Informant ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Md. Asghar, Advocate Ms. Tanu Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Advocate For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate ---------- 06/06.08.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14-A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (1 of 2016) challenging the order dated 01.03.2025, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.77 of 2025, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla by which prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant, namely Kuldip Kumar Sahu @ Kuldeep Sahu @ Kuldeep Kumar Sahu has been rejected in connection with Gumla (Mahila) P.S. Case No.01 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 69, 89, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and for the offence under Sections 3(1) (r )(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. As per F.I.R. lodged on 02.01.2025, the appellant is alleged to have committed rape upon the Informant continuously from the year 2016 to 2024 on the pretext of marriage. He is also alleged to have Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23446 ) 2 prepared indecent video of the Informant. The appellant is also alleged to have caused termination of the pregnancy of the Informant. 3. Heard Md. Asghar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below rejecting the bail of the appellant is illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that this is a case of consensual relationship between both sides and the Informant is a major girl having educational qualification of M.A. and B.Ed. It is submitted that as the appellant is employed recently and earning money and hence, he has been implicated by the Informant. It is submitted that the prosecutrix also failed to produce any evidence of termination of pregnancy. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since and 03.01.2025, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant has also opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the Informant was a minor when for the first time the occurrence was committed, i.e. in the month of July, 2016. It is submitted that the appellant has induced her for entering into relationship with him for a long period on the promise of marriage, but he has not kept his promise. It is submitted that the appellant and the entire Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23446 ) 3 family members have abused her in the name of her caste and the appellant has also prepared indecent videos of their relationship. It is submitted that the trial is going on and the informant has also been examined, who has also supported her case and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R. and the Case Diary and considered the submission of both sides. 8. It appears that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. for committing rape upon the Informant on the pretext of marriage from the year 2016 till 2024. 9. It appears to be a case of consensual relationship between the parties. 10. It appears that the prosecutrix is a major lady, aged around 25 years on the date of instituting the F.I.R. and she has made no complaint against the appellant while the appellant established physical relationship with her from July, 2016 till the year 2024 on the pretext of marrying with her. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in the case of 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 and in the light of the fact that no protest was registered by the complaint during all those years. 11. In view of the above, the appellant, namely Kuldip Kumar Sahu @ Kuldeep Sahu @ Kuldeep Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23446 ) 4 Kumar Sahu 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 Gumla (Mahila) P.S. Case No.01 of 2025, to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla/or his Successor Court, subject to the condition that the appellant shall not tamper with the evidence and shall co-operate in the trial and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Court below and shall submit his Aadhar Number and Mobile Number before the learned Court below, which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of the trial without prior permission of the learned Court below and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 01.03.2025, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.77 of 2025, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Gumla is set aside. 13. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 373 of 2025 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.