Rahul Kumar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rekha Devi
Case Details
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2023 Rahul Kumar ..... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rekha Devi …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : For the State For the R. No.2 : : -----
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Deb Nandan Rajak, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. PP Mr. Faruque Ansari, Advocate 5/04.07.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2023 in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 113 of 2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh, whereby the appellant's prayer who is the petitioner for Anticipatory Bail stood rejected in SC/ST Barkagaon P.S Case 256/2022 dated 15.10.2022 for the offense alleged u/s 376, 506 IPC and section 3 (1)(s), 3(2) (Va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as against appellant. 3. The prosecution story in short is based on the written complaint of one Rekha Devi @ Rekha Tara w/o Late Shushil Kumar, who states that she is a resident of Village Langatu, Barkagaon P.S. Barkagaon District- Hazaribag. The informant has stated that she is a mother of two children and her first husband died on 15.08.2013. Later in 2018, she remarried Sujit Kumar Gupta, who was posted as Railway Supervisor. During the subsistence of her second marriage, she came in contact with Rahul Kumar (Appellant) through Facebook and became friends with him in 2019. Both started sharing their personal life and family story, thereafter she fell in love with Rahul Kumar and they decided to spend their life together. The informant and the appellant spent time together on several occasions in the house where she used to reside with her second 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2023 husband. The informant alleges that the appellant promised to marry her and asked her to divorce her second husband. Accordingly, she divorced her second husband and started living with the appellant but later on, he failed to fulfil the promise of marriage. It is further alleged that thereafter the informant visited the house of the father of the Appellant and narrated the incident but the appellant and his family members refused to accept her and started to abuse and insult her indicating her caste that she hailed from lower Caste-Dalit under the category of Scheduled Caste and the girl was humiliated by making offending remarks that such girl of lower Caste (Harijan-S.C) always tried to trap the boy of upper-Caste. On such facts, FIR was lodged on 15.10.2022 under various sections of IPC and also under SC/ST Act. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that he is absolutely innocent and no offence as alleged in the FIR is made out and it is not a case of false promise or breach of promise and utmost it is a case of live- in-relationship. It has further been pointed out that both become friend on Facebook and thereafter it is said that the physical relationship established between them under the promise of marriage. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 and in the case of Mohd. Sadab Khan Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. in Bail Appln. 2300 of 2022, reported in 2022 SCC Online Del. 2406 and also relied upon the rulings of some another High Courts. Further it has also been pointed out that there is a delay in the institution of the FIR of 40 days and therefore the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that it is a pure case of exploitation of a married woman, who was forced to dissolve her earlier marriage in order to solemnize the marriage with the appellant under the promise of the marriage and during the course of the relationship, the appellant rather solemnized the 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2023 marriage with victim confidentially, under which the appellant had worn the mangalsutra to the victim and also promised to marry her by organising a social function and the appellant adopted the victim as a wife and the victim and the appellant started living as husband and wife and therefore, it is submitted that the intention of the appellant was to betray from the very beginning i.e. he had been establishing physical relationship with victim under the “False Promise” of marriage ab initio. It has further been pointed out that the victim was also induced by the appellant to take divorce from his husband in order to solemnize marriage with her and the victim upon the promise of marrying with the appellant took divorce, but later on the appellant refused to marry her by uttering and using abusive languages taking the name of the caste and thus she was humiliated and insulted publicly within the meaning of section 3 (1)(s), 3(2) (V a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. It has also been pointed out by the learned APP that the investigation in this case is still going on and interrogation is also required to find out the truth and therefore the appellant does not deserve anticipatory bail. 6. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. 7. It is a case of exploitation of a married woman by a young boy, who came in contact with the victim woman and established the physical relationship under the promise of marriage. Further it has also been alleged that this appellant had exploited and induced her to dissolve her existing marriage with her husband and accordingly the victim took divorce from her husband in order to solemnize the marriage with victim but this appellant refused to marry with her and therefore it has been pointed that it is not a case of breach of promise rather it is a case of false promise intentionally and knowingly and when the marriage was dissolved by the victim from her husband in order to marry with the appellant and the victim wanted to marry with this appellant, then the appellant refused to marry her by hurling abusive languages that she was belonging to a lower caste and that is why he could not solemnize the marriage and as such, it is not a case for the grant of anticipatory bail 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2023 in view of allegations levelled against appellant for the offences as in the FIR are substantiated and hence it is bar under section 18-A, under the present facts and circumstances of this case when a victim woman has been exploited and she was humiliated and insulted by branding the victim with the name of her caste belonging to SC/ST as evident from the evidences collected during the course of investigation vide paras 1,5,6,7,8,9,19,22 & 25 of the case diary and also from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the rulings upon which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is relying are not applicable in the present case, because a woman being the S.C./S.T. has been exploited by the appellant therefore in the light of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, this anticipatory bail in the SC/ST Act, where there is a direct allegation against the appellant for sexual exploitation of a S.C./S.T. woman under the ‘false’ promise of marriage and she was induced to take divorce from her husband and when she took divorce to marry with the Appellant, the appellant refused to marry alleging that she was belonging to Dalit Caste and as such, it is not conducive to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to him and accordingly the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected and the appellant is directed to surrender within four weeks. 9. Accordingly this criminal appeal is hereby dismissed and the order dated 15.02.2023 in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 113 of 2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh, in connection with SC/ST Barkagaon P.S Case 256/2022 dated 15.10.2022 for the offense alleged u/s 376, 506 IPC and section 3 (1)(s), 3(2) (V a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby confirmed. R.Kumar (Navneet Kumar, J.)