2026:JHHC:5080 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 875 of 2025 ------ Ravi Kumar Mahto, aged about 27 years, son of Kedar Nath Mahto, resident of Village- Cheri Kamre, PO- Kamre, PS- Kanke, Dist. -Ranchi ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim/Informant .…..Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A. P. P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate ------ ORAL ORDER IN COURT 05/19.02.2026 The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 875 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 by challenging the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by Sri Yashwant Prakash, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi in MCA No. 1189 of 2025 arising out of SC/ST P. S. Case No. 70 of 2022 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 75 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 341/323/376 /379/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that relationship between the appellant and the Informant is consensual in nature and however, when their act was seen by the 2026:JHHC:5080 2 husband of the Informant on 24.09.2022 in objectionable condition, the instant case has been filed. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 13.06.2025 and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant has committed rape upon the victim lady on the pretext of marriage and as such, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submissions of learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that the appellant has allured the victim lady and established physical relationship with her on the pretext of marrying her. It is submitted that husband of the Informant is annoyed due to the act of the appellant and as such, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Perused the records of this case and case diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It appears from the FIR that the parties were in consensual relationship for around eight to nine months and the victim lady is a major lady aged around thirty (30) years. 8. It appears that the parties were having consensual relationship for around 8 to 9 months and when their act was seen by the husband of the Informant on 24.09.2022 in objectionable condition, the instant case has been filed. 9. It also appears that the appellant is in custody since 13.06.2025 i.e. for around eight (8) months. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant- Ravi Kumar Mahto is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Yashwant 2026:JHHC:5080 3 Prakash, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi/or his Successor Court in connection with SC/ST P. S. Case No. 70 of 2022 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 75 of 2025 subject to the condition that the appellant shall also file an Undertaking before the learned Court below that he will not get indulged in such type of crime in future again, otherwise prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation his bail and also subject to condition that the appellant will deposit Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) by way of Demand Draft in the name of Informant at the time of furnishing his bail bonds, without prejudice to his case. However, the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) will not be returned to the appellant by the Informant and the respondent no. 2 will be at liberty to withdraw the said Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) from learned Court below and learned Court below shall release the Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- on filing of the petition on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 11. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 875 of 2025 is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed by Sri Yashwant Prakash, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi in MCA No. 1189 of 2025 arising out of SC/ST P. S. Case No. 70 of 2022 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 75 of 2025 is, hereby, set aside. 12. Thus, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 875 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 19.02.2026 Kamlesh/