Adarsh Kumar Jha v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Rakhi Kumari Rajak
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.123 of 2023 Adarsh Kumar Jha Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Rakhi Kumari Rajak -------- ..... … Appellant …. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate -------- For the Appellant For the State For the O.P. No.2 05/26th July, 2023 1. It appears from the order dated 12th July, 2022 passed by the learned trial court that the cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the S.C./S.T. (POA), Act was only taken in this case but in the impugned order dated 8th February, 2023, Sections 323, 341, 406 of I.P.C., Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST are also mentioned. 2.
Legal Reasoning
In view of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary correction in paragraph 1 of present appeal during course of the day. 3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8th February, 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad in A.B.P. No.361 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the appellant’s prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a complaint case being Complaint Case No.5800 of 2022 was filed on behalf of the complainant – Rakhi Kumari Rajak against accused/appellant – Adarsh Kumar Jha before the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI-cum-SC/ST Special the Judge, Dhanbad. The complainant had made allegations in the said complaint case that the appellant after having got registered the marriage from the office of the Registrar Office, Dhanbad -2- under the Special Marriage Act did not solemnize marriage with her. Whenever the complainant asked him for marriage, he stated that he belonged to Brahamin caste and she was of Scheduled Tribe and he would not marry with her. The complainant several times asked the accused to marry with her but he prolonged time either on one pretext or the other. On 25th April, 2022, he came to his house and took her forcibly to Ranchi. He kept this fact of marriage secret from the persons of his society. The physical relation was also established between them on 25th April, 2022. The complainant alleged that the accused had insulted the complainant using caste indicating words and he never accepted her to be his wife and also made demand of Rs.5 lacs in dowry. He also asked to withdraw the case of rape being Katras P.S. Case No.117 of 2018 under Sections 376, 417 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short “SC/ST (PoA) Act”) which was pending. The appellant/accused had also beaten her and tortured her for demand of dowry. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on this complaint, after statement of complainant and witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the accused was summoned under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned vide order dated 12th July, 2022 for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. 6. It is also further submitted that no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant as in the whole complaint, there is no allegation in regard to using caste indicating words against the complainant in order to insult her in a public view. It is also submitted that the appellant never denied his marriage with the victim. In paragraph 10 of this criminal appeal, the appellant has specifically stated that the complainant is his legally wedded wife and after a long time of relationship they also solemnized marriage at the Registrar Office, Dhanbad. It is also submitted -3- that still the appellant is not deviating from solemnizing the marriage with the victim. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act will not attract in this case because there is nothing in the complaint case that the appellant had tortured the victim for demand of dowry and for non-fulfilment of the dowry in a public view, therefore, prayed to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that in paragraph 12 of the compliant case, it is stated that the accused had insulted her and also did maar-peet with her using caste indicating words and also demanded Rs.5 lacs as additional dowry and pressurized her to withdraw the rape case. 8. In view of the allegations made in the complaint case, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had made demand of dowry and subjected her to cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry in a public view. It is also admitted fact that the appellant also admits that the victim is his legally wedded wife. As such the provision of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act will not attract in the present matter. 9. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present criminal appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly the same is, hereby, allowed and the impugned order dated 8th February, 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST, Dhanbad in A.B.P. No.361 of 2023 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 11. In consequence thereof, in the event of arrest, the abovenamed appellant, involved in the aforesaid case be released on anticipatory bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 5800 of 2022 on the following -4- conditions:- i. ii. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. The appellant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. iii. In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant. iv. The appellant shall co-operate in the trial before the court below and in case of non-cooperation, the trial court would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant without any reference to this Court. 12. Accordingly the present criminal appeal stands allowed and