2026:JHHC:5987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 190 of 2025 Sukhen Ghosh aged about 42 Years son of Late Dayal Chandra Ghosh, resident of village Jaipur Barunga, Post Office & Police Station Maheshpur, District Pakur, Jharkhand …. Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.X wife of Y …... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP For the Informant : Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate ----------- Oral Order in Court 15/Dated:04th February, 2026 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Protest Petition being S.C/S.T Case No.16 of 2023, arising out of Mahespur P.S. Case No.128 of 2023, instituted for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and section 3(1) (r) (s) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities (POA) Act, which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Pakur. 2. It is alleged in the FIR that while the informant being Mukhiya of Jaypur Barunga on 20.07.2023 at about 1.30 p.m. was discharging her work in Panchayat office, then in the meantime, the appellant of same village finding her alone reached there and caught hold her hand and pushed her against the wall and started pressing her breast and when she opposed, he slapped her and abused her indicating her caste name and thereafter he pushed her down on the ground and committed rape upon her and threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone otherwise she will be killed. 2026:JHHC:5987 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that appellant has not committed rape upon the informant i.e. the Victim lady as she is the Mukhiya. It is submitted that occurrence took place on 20.07.2023 but FIR was lodged after delay of one month on 21.08.2023 without assigning any reason and hence the prosecution case is false and concocted. It is submitted that no derogatory and defamatory statement has been made by the appellant in public view to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) & Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is submitted that I.O of this case has submitted Final Form in favour of the appellant on 03.10.2023 (i.e. Annexure-2). However, the informant had filed Protest Petition-cum- complaint being S.C/S.T Case No.16 of 2023 and thereafter the learned Court below has taken cognizance against the appellant under section 376 of the IPC and section 3(1)(r) (s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act vide order dated 27.09.2024 and summon has been issued against the appellant. It is submitted that Solemn Affirmation (in short ‘S.A’) and the statement of the enquiry witnesses are not reliable as they are highly interested witnesses. It is submitted that neither the appellant nor the complainant were present at the Panchayat Bhawan on 20.07.2023 and the same is evident from the perusal of the Attendance Register as well as the Proceeding Register of the Panchayat. It is submitted that due to village politics the appellant has been implicated in this case and hence the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the informant, 2026:JHHC:5987 3 who is the Mukhiya of Jaipur Baranga Panchayat. It is submitted that though the police has submitted Final Form in favour of the appellant on 03.10.2023 but the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against the appellant under section 376 of the IPC and section 3(1)(r) (s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is submitted that complainant was in shock and hence there is delay in lodging the FIR. However, the police has recorded the statement of only interested persons and submitted Final Form in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that complainant in her complaint S.A and the Enquiry Witnesses examined as C.W-1 (i.e. S.A of the Complainant-Respondent No.2), C.W-2, C.W-3 and C.W-4 have fully supported the case. It is submitted that even C.W-2 is the husband of the complainant-Respondent No.2 and he also stated that the complainant was frightened to a great extent after the occurrence and was under depression and has disclosed this fact of commission of rape upon her on 08.08.2023 and even his wife could not hoist the flag on 15.08.2023. It is submitted that even the witness-C.W-3 (i.e. father in law) and C.W-4 is the independent witness, have supported the case of the complainant and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 5. Perused the FIR and records of the case and also the Final Form and Protest-cum-Complaint Petition and considered the submission of both the sides. 6. It appears that the appellant is named in the FIR for committing rape upon the informant (i.e. the Victim lady) on 20.07.2023 but the FIR was lodged on 21.08.2023 after delay of one month. 7. It appears that the police has submitted Final Form in favour of the appellant on 11.11.2023. 2026:JHHC:5987 4 8. However, the complainant-informant had filed Protest- cum-Complaint Petition giving rise to S.C/S.T Case No.16 of 2023 before the Court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-cum-Special Judge, Pakur. 9. Thereafter the complainant was examined on Solemn Affirmation as C.W-1 and other witnesses were examined as C.W-2, C.W-3 and C.W-4 and they have also supported the case of the complainant-Respondent No.2. 10. It appears that on the basis of above, the learned Court below had taken cognizance against the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r) (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 11. Considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the complainant- informant, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail. 12. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant is rejected. 13. Thus, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.190 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed. 14. The appellant is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail and the learned Trial Court shall consider the bail application of the appellant on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 04.02.2026 Saket/-