(2026:JHHC:9056) 1 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S. J.) No. 733 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar Gupta, aged about 58 years, son of late Hira lal Gupta @ late Hira Lal Agarwal, resident of Agrasen Bhawan, Sector 1/B, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS – Sector – 1, District – Bokaro. … … …Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. XXX … … …Respondents ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, Addl. P.P. : For the Informant : Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act with the prayer to set aside the order dated 07.08.2025 in M.C.A. No. 1518 of 2025 passed by the learned A.J.C. – II – cum- Special Judge, SC / ST Act, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. SC / ST Case No. 53 of 2024 corresponding to SC / ST P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024. 3. The allegation against the appellant is that the appellant developed friendship with the informant by assuring her to help her in examination and service of Police and on that pretext, the (2026:JHHC:9056) 2 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 appellant called the informant to Bokaro. Once the informant reached Bokaro, the appellant disclosed his love for her and the appellant further disclosed that his wife and child died in an accident. Further, the appellant told the informant that if the informant marries the appellant, the informant will be quite safe and happy. It is admitted case of the informant that the informant lived with the appellant in a quarter at Bokaro under the same roof for approximately six months, and during that period, the appellant made physical relationship with the informant. There is further allegation that the appellant has taken Rs. 50,000/- from the informant to purchase land for her but he has not handed over the paper of the land purchased nor returned the amount of Rs. 50,000/. When the informant asked the appellant to marry her, the appellant refused for the marriage. There is further allegation that the appellant and his sister told the informant to be “Coal Kukur” and used filthy language against her. The informant informed the matter to the Police but when Police refused to register an FIR, she filed complaint case being Complaint Case No. SC / ST No. 53 of 2024 in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – II – cum – Special Judge, SC / ST, Ranchi which upon being referred to Police, Ranchi, SC / ST P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024, was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 318(4), 316(2), 308(2), 352, 351(2) (3) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (s) and 3 (1) (w) (i) of the SC / (2026:JHHC:9056) 3 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 ST Act. After completion of investigation, Police submitted charge- sheet, cognizance was taken, charge was framed and some of the witnesses have also been examined during trial as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. During pendency of the trial, the appellant filed a regular bail application and the learned Special Judge, SC / ST Ranchi, vide order dated 07.08.2025 considered that the appellant is named in the FIR and in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S., the informant has stated of having physical relationship with the appellant for seven years on the false pretext of marriage. The learned Special Judge, SC / ST Cases, Ranchi, considered that the involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out at this stage and by that time, investigation was still going on and thus considering, rejected the prayer of bail of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at first, the appellant lodged an online complaint on 19.07.2023 against the informant and this case has been lodged much thereafter on 15.12.2024 as a counterblast. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC / ST cases, failed to consider that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the complaint. It is next submitted that admittedly, the alleged physical relationship between the appellant and the informant took place about five years prior to the (2026:JHHC:9056) 4 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 filing of the complaint; which upon being referred to Police, the FIR has been registered. 6. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC /ST Act failed to consider that there was no specific date, time and place of the alleged occurrence and also in absence of any allegation that the appellant has told anything to the informant in a place within public view, the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC / ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, is not made out. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge also failed to consider that in absence of any allegation that the appellant ever touched to the informant without her consent and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(w)(i) is not made out. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr. reported in (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 329, it is next submitted that Paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment mandates that before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., he must exercise his remedy under sub Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and he must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support of the same. It is next submitted that in this case although the informant has claimed to have informed the Police about the occurrence prior to (2026:JHHC:9056) 5 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 filing the complaint but no document in respect of the same has been produced anywhere. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan on 21.08.2024 in the case of Vijay Sharma & Another. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in (2024) : RJ – JD : 35171 that therein it has been observed that in respect of the offences committed under the Indian Penal Code before 01.07.2024, the offender can and has to be dealt with and punished under Indian Penal Code even after enforcement of the B.N.S. from 01.07.2024 and in this case as the alleged offence was committed before 01.07.2024, Section 69 of the B.N.S. which came into force only after 01.07.2024, cannot be pressed into service. It is next submitted that the situation has changed as charge-sheet has already been submitted, charge has already been framed, some of the witnesses have already been examined but the informant who has come to this Court to oppose the prayer for bail and is opposing the same tooth and nail; for reasons best known to her, has not yet examined herself as a witness. It is next submitted that since admittedly the victim girl is a major woman of 35 years, as is evident from description of her age mentioned in complaint by herself, the offence punishable under Section 65 (1) of the B.N.S. is not made out as such offence is applicable only when the rape is committed on a women under 16 years of age and in this case, FIR (2026:JHHC:9056) 6 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 was erroneously registered in respect of the offence punishable under Section 65(1) of the B.N.S. and charge-sheet was erroneously submitted in respect of such offence. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be admitted to bail. 8. Learned Addl. P.P and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Arpan Barla & The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3227 of 2023 dated 05.02.2026, wherein this Court in facts of that case, submitted that there was commission of rape and subsequent thereto, the accused offered to marry the prosecutrix and thereafter the prosecutrix left the house of the accused, was not found to be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings. It is next submitted that since the appellant committed sexual exploitation on the victim, hence, the learned Special Judge has not committed any illegality in refusing to grant bail to the appellant. It is next submitted that the claim of the appellant that he does not know the respondent, is false; because the appellant and the informant visited Rajarappa and had a photograph also on 28.10.2019, hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Special Judge in rejecting the regular bail application of appellant. It is lastly submitted that this appeal being without any merit, be dismissed. (2026:JHHC:9056) 7 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 9. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials on record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the alleged occurrence took place at least 5 to 7 years prior to the filing of the complaint which upon being referred to Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the FIR has been registered. It is the admitted case of the informant that she was willingly living with the appellant for over six months and had even admitted to having visited Rajarappa with him. Keeping in view the long admitted relationship of the informant with the appellant and the complaint has been field not immediately after the physical relationship started but after 5 to 7 years thereafter and as admittedly charge-sheet has been submitted, charge has been framed, some of the witnesses have been examined but for the reasons best known to her, the informant herself has not yet been examined as a witness in the trial and also considering the fact that the appellant has been in custody since 30.07.2025 as well as the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant be admitted to bail subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate with the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 passed by learned A.J.C.-II – cum – Spl Judge SC / ST Act, Ranchi, is quashed (2026:JHHC:9056) 8 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 733 of 2025 and set aside and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.- II – cum- Spl Judge, SC / ST, Ranchi, in connection with SC / ST P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024, with the condition that he will cooperate with the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th March, 2026 AFR/ Aditi Uploaded On - / /