Rajendra Kushwaha @ Rajendra Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

---------- : Mr. Sahil, Advocate : Mr. Saurabh Narayan, Advocate : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP : Mr. Sushant Kumar Singh, Advocate ----------- 06/Dated:26th March, 2025 I.A. No.12785 of 2024 I.A. No.12785 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 59 days.

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned APP and in view of the averments made in the Interlocutory Application, the delay of 59 days in filing the instant Criminal Appeal is condoned, subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay Rs.1000/ to the Respondent No.2 within one week from today.

Thus, I.A. No.12785 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.825 of 2024

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of bail by challenging the order dated 25.05.2024 passed in B.P. No.264 of 2024 by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected 1 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in connection with Simaria P.S. Case No.19 of 2024.

As per F.I.R, it is alleged that earlier co-accused Pyarelal Kushwah had committed rape upon the Victim lady and thereafter the appellant has also committed rape upon the victim lady after some days. Thereafter the Victim lady brought notice of this fact in the society then a meeting took place and even Rs.15,000/- was from her husband and further Rs.1,00,000/- was taken from the accused person by one Choutu Ganjhu but no result was found and hence the F.I.R was lodged.

Heard Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned APP for the State and Mr. Sushant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that vague allegation has been made in the F.I.R and no date and time is mentioned. It is submitted that Victim lady has refused for her medical examination. It is submitted that there is no paper to show meeting of social gathering and receiving of Rs.1,00,000/ by Chotu Ganjhu from the appellant and his brother. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 24.03.2024 i.e. for one year and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the Victim lady and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected.

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, after adopting the argument of the learned APP, has submitted that the appellant has also committed rape upon the informant while she was grazing goats. It is submitted that appellant and other family 2 members were threatened of dire consequences and has even obtained Rs.15,000/ from her husband in the name of social gathering. It is submitted that although prosecutrix has refused for medical examination however she has fully supported her case during her statement against the appellant. Even the witnesses namely Khusiala Ganjhu, Binod Ganjhu, Vijay Bharti, Baldeo Ganjhu and Poonam Devi, whose statements are recorded in paragraph 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary, have supported the allegation against the appellant and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected.

Perused the records of this case and case diary submitted by the learned APP and considered the submission of both the sides.

It appears from the F.I.R lodged on 11.02.2024 that occurrence has taken place for the first time against the informant to make allegation when the co-accused Pyarelal Kushwha alleged to have committed rape upon the Victim lady.

It also appears that after some days the appellant is said to have committed rape upon the Victim lady. However, no specific date for committing rape upon the Victim lady by the appellant has been disclosed either in the F.I.R or in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C before the Police at paragraph 2 of the case diary.

It reveals from paragraph 24 of the case diary that the Victim lady has refused to go for medical examination while she was being taken to Sadar Hospital, Chatra.

Considering the custody of the appellant and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the appellant namely, Rajendra Kushwaha @ Rajendra Singh is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in connection with Simaria P.S. Case No.19 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be the relative of the appellant and the other bailor must be having landed property in his/her own specific name.

Under the circumstances, the order dated 25.05.2024 passed in B.P. No.264 of 2024 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in connection with Simaria P.S. Case No.19 of 2024 is set aside.

Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.825 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. Saket/- (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 4