Jharkhand High Court
Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Sethi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 586 of 2024
Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Sethi .... --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
—
For the Appellant: Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the Informant: Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
---
I.A.No. 8032 of 2025
07/ 11.08.2025 Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs.
Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned Counsel
appearing for the informant.
2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to him
during the pendency of this appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 366A, 376
(2) (n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 20 years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
4. It has been alleged that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by
an unknown person. Subsequently on being recovered by the C.W.C. from
Bhubneshwar 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded in which she has named the
appellant as the person who had enticed her away.
5. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the age
of the victim was found to be 16 years. In fact, she had willingly gone to
Bhubneshwar and thereafter to various places. The learned Counsel submits that
the appellant is in custody since long.
6. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
7. It appears from the evidence of the victim, who has been examined as P.W.1,
that it was the appellant who runs a grocery shop and who was sexually
exploiting the victim since long and at his behest the informant had gone to
Bhunbeshwar and there also the appellant had established physical relationship
with her along with another person.
8. The evidence of P.W.1 categorically reveals about the involvement of the
appellant in enticing away the daughter of the informant and committing rape
upon her.
9. Regard being had to the above, we are not inclined to admit the appellant
on bail. Hence, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
10. The aforesaid I.A. stands rejected.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J)
P.K.S.
2