Debesh Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand

---------- : Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP : Mr. B.R. Rochan, Advocate ----------- Oral Order in Court 10/Dated:11th 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 S.C/S.T Complaint Case No.04 of 2023, instituted under Sections 376, 323, 498A, 494, 506 and 34 of IPC and section 3(U), 3(W), 3Z, 3 (Z)(V) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (POA) Act. However, cognizance has been taken under section 323, 498A and 506 of IPC and section 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (POA) Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh.

It is alleged in the complaint petition that the appellant Debesh Kumar, on the pretext of marriage had forcibly established physical relationship with the complainant. Thereafter on 24.06.2019 he had solemnized marriage with her as per Hindu rites and customs and took her to matrimonial home but his family members did not allow her to enter into the 1 house and they abused her in the name of her caste name. It is also alleged that family members of the appellant informed her on 22.11.2022 that appellant is going to perform second marriage with Priya Kaur on 25.11.2022 and they asked her not to protest and offered her money but the complainant informed Mahila P.S and they stopped the second marriage of the appellant.

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 even as per FIR the complainant is the wife of the appellant and the complainant- Respondent No.2 has solemnized love marriage with the appellant in the year 2019. However, the complaint case has been filed after delay of four years. It is submitted that the complainant is a very stubborn lady and after solemnization of their marriage she was continuously putting pressure upon him to permanently shift to her parental house which was refused by the appellant and just to bend the appellant the complainant filed the present case not only against the appellant but also against his entire family members. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against the appellant only under section 323, 498A and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. It is submitted that this case is mainly a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and hence the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the appellant had committed rape upon the Victim lady on the pretext of marriage in the year 2015. However, he married with her in the year 2019. It is submitted that the appellant has performed second marriage 2 with one Priya Kaur and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected.

Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submission of learned APP, has further submitted that the appellant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the appellant has committed sexual exploitation the complainant from 2015 to 2019 continuously. However, after much persuasion, he had performed marriage with her on 24.06.2019 in Ramgarh as per Hindu customs but the other accused persons were not ready to enter the complaint into the house. It is submitted that even the family members of the appellant allured her and tried to give her money so that the appellant may perform his second marriage with Priay Kaur. But the complainant-Respondent No.2 had informed Mahila P.S Ramgarh and copy was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh. The complainant has even filed the paper cutting of Newspaper dated 24.11.2022, which have been enclosed as Annexure-3 and Annexure-3/1 and which reveal that the appellant was restrained by the police for performing second marriage and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from going through the records, it appears that the appellant is said to be the husband as per para-8, 9, 11 and 16 of the averments made in this Criminal Appeal.

It also appears from the statement of enquiry witnesses examined as E.W-1, E.W-2, E.W-3, E.W-4, E.W-5, E.W-6 that the appellant is the husband of the complainant and he is not keeping his wife.

On the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. 3

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant is rejected, at this stage.

Thus, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.630 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed.

However, 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. Dated: 11.02.2026 Saket/- (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 4