Jharkhand High Court
Abhiral Kumar Yadav @ Abiral Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:10676-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.140 of 2025
-----
Abhiral Kumar Yadav @ Abiral Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years, son
of Late Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-Biharijori, PO-
Birniyan, PS-Poraiyahat, District-Godda, Jharkhand
… Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
——-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
——-
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
——
th
Order No.05/Dated:7 April, 2025
1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order
dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Bail
Petition No.323 of 2024 in connection with Poraiyahat PS Case No.129
of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the
appellant registered for the offence under Sections 498-A, 370, 307-A,
494, 495, 497 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
that the present appellant is innocent and has committed no offence.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
the informant is the wife of the appellant who has instituted the case
against the present appellant on the false presumption that the appellant
has solemnized second marriage with a minor in her life time and
established physical relationship with her who gave birth to a child.
2025:JHHC:10676-DB
4. It has been submitted that the said allegation is false as it is
based upon the concocted facts. The appellant is in judicial custody
since 06.09.2024.
5. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the aforesaid fact has not been considered
by the learned trial Court while rejecting the regular bail of the present
appellant and, as such, the impugned order may be interfered with.
6. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by submitting
that in the case-diary, there is sufficient and cogent material against the
appellant in the alleged crime.
7. It has been contended that it is a case where the appellant has
already married with the informant and by concealing the same, he
solemnized another marriage with a minor aged about 15 years at the
time of occurrence and established physical relationship with her due to
which a child was born out of the said illicit relationship. The aforesaid
fact has been reported by the wife of the present appellant (informant of
the case) by filing Complaint Case No.620 of 2023 and based upon that
the present case has been instituted.
8. The learned State counsel has submitted that there are two
offences said to be committed by the present appellant, first, he
solemnized another marriage during the life time of his first wife and
second, he established physical relationship with the minor. Therefore,
the offence said to be committed by the appellant is serious in nature
and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the prayer for regular
bail of the present appellant has rightly been rejected by the learned
2
2025:JHHC:10676-DB
trial Court and, as such, it cannot be said that while considering the
prayer for regular bail of the appellant the decision which has been
taken by the learned trial Court suffers from an error.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding/reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned order as also the First Information Report, case diary and
affidavit in objection.
10. The prosecution has been set on motion on the basis of the
complaint made by the wife of the present appellant (the informant).
Subsequently, the same has been converted into a First Information
Report in exercise of power conferred under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
The police has conducted investigation and found that the present
appellant has established physical relationship with the minor aged
about 15 years and out of the said illicit relationship the minor gave
birth to a child. The statement of the minor girl has been recorded under
section 164 Cr.P.C in which she has stated that the present appellant
has performed marriage with her during the life time of his first wife.
11. It appears from paragraph no.63 of the case diary that the
allegation levelled against the present appellant has been found to be
true. It further appears from paragraph no.68 of the case diary that as
per the Admission Register of the School, the date of birth of the minor
girl is 10.11.2008, i.e., she has been found less than 15 years of age at
the time of occurrence.
12. It has been alleged that the informant’s husband fled away with
a minor girl to Delhi. It is alleged that the accused appellant has modus
3
2025:JHHC:10676-DB
operandi to allure the minor/major girls and took them to Delhi and
used to push them in prostitution.
13. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts, is of the view that it
is a case of establishing physical relationship with the minor girl having
the age of about 15 years who has sexually been exploited by the
present appellant and the same has been reported by the wife of the
present appellant (the informant). This fact has also been corroborated
by the minor while recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
14. This Court, considering the nature of allegation against the
present appellant, is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with
the impugned order.
15. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.
16. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the trial is pending.
17. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sudhir
4
[ad_1]
Source link