Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Kumar Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:11405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 548 of 2022
------
Jitendra Kumar Jha, aged about 35 years, S/o Pawan Kumar Jha,
R/o Near Durga Mandap, H.N. 150, Guasai, P.O. & P.S.-Gua,
District-West Singhbhum, (Jharkhand) ......Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sushma Kumari, aged about 34 years, D/o-Jai Kishan Lal, R/o-
C.C.L. Colony, (Naya Nagar), Barkakana, P.O.-Barkakana,
P.S.-Patratu, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand)
......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Deo, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P
For the Informant : Mr. Asit Baran Mahata, Advocate
------
JUDGMENT
CAV on: 21.01.2026 Pronounced On: 18.04.2026
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant under Sections 14 (A) of the S.T./S.C. (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 2015 for grant of anticipatory bail who is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Protest Case No.159 of
2018 (Arising out of Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 05 of 2017),
for the offences under Section 354 and 506 of the I.P.C. and under
Section 3(w) (i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The informant-Respondent No.2 had submitted written
application before Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh on
02.05.2017 stating therein that while she was posted as Block Co-
1
2026:JHHC:11405
Ordinator in Drinking and Sanitation Department at Ramgarh, she
used to visit Ramgarh Office for official purpose. On 02.05.2017
at about 10:00 A.M., she went to Ramgarh office where the
appellant Jitendra Kumar Jha (District Co-Ordinator) was sitting
alone in his office. She sat on the chair, but all of a sudden, the
appellant came from behind and caught her and tried to kiss her
and bite her cheeks and thrashed her on the floor and tried to
commit rape upon her. Upon which she protested and ran away.
Then the appellant told her that he had committed such offences
earlier to the tribal ladies and threatened her to kill. She further
disclosed that the appellant used to abuse her as she belongs to
Schedule Tribe. Thereafter she went to police station for lodging
the F.I.R., but she was asked to move before the Superintendent of
Police and hence, she filed the written application before the
Superintendent of Police for lodging the F.I.R. giving rise to
Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 05/2017 dated 02.05.2017 for the
offence U/s-376/511 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of SC/ST Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and has been
falsely implicated in this case.
It is further submitted that after instituting the aforesaid
case, the matter was investigated by the police and after
completion of investigation, the I.O. has submitted Final Form
No. 05/17 on 30.05.2017 stating therein that the allegation leveled
against the appellant is false and no offence U/s- 354/506 I.P.C.
and Section 3 (w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is
2
2026:JHHC:11405
made out against the appellant..
It is further submitted that the appellant was posted as
District Co- Ordinator in Drinking and Sanitation Department at
Ramgarh, whereas complainant-Respondent No.2 was posted as
Block Co- Ordinator of Patratu Block in the Department of in
Drinking and Sanitation under the appellant on the date of
occurrence and on the date of alleged occurrence the appellant had
directed the complainant-Respondent No.2 to go to Kuju Office
for official purpose upon which the complainant/O.P. No.2 refused
and hence the present case has been instituted against the
appellant.
It is further submitted that the alleged occurrence was
shown to the Ramgarh Office of Drinking and Sanitation
Department where several other employees were working, but the
no one from the said office has been examined as Enquiry witness
nor anyone has supported the case of the complainant.
5. It is submitted that the informant-Respondent No.2 had
instituted a complaint before the SC/ST commission and thereafter
the SC/ST commission referred the matter to D.C., Ramgarh who
conducted initial inquiry and in that initial inquiry the D.C.,
Ramgarh found it false. The said committee was comprising of
senior officials, including the Director of DRDA, Ramgarh, an
Executive Magistrate, the District Welfare Officer, District Social
Welfare Officer, Executive Engineer and one Lady Medical
Officer.
It is further submitted that letter bearing Ref. No. 851,
dated 18.09.2017, issued by the Director, DRDA, Ramgarh, shows
that a formal meeting for the joint inquiry was convened and both
3
2026:JHHC:11405
the appellant and the Respondent No.2 were directed to appear
and present their respective cases and after a thorough inquiry, the
Committee submitted its report dated 19.09.2017, with the
conclusion that the allegations made by the applicant-Respondent
No.2 are baseless. The committee verified the Online Biometric
Attendance records, which proved that several office employees
were present at the alleged time of the incident, making the
alleged crime impossible to commit without being noticed and
several employees of the office submitted a joint written
application to the committee on 19.09.2017 (Annexure-S/1 series
of the supplementary affidavit dated 23.09.2025), stating that no
such incident took place and the complaint was entirely false.
Hence, the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this
criminal appeal is devoid of merit.
It is further submitted that the appellant is named in the
F.I.R. for thrashing Respondent No.2-victim in the office and the
appellant had tried to commit rape upon her on 02.05.2017.
It is further submitted that although the police has submitted
final form in favour of the appellant, however, the complainant had
filed Protest Petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ramgarh and which was transferred to the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh. Thereafter the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh had taken cognizance
against the appellant under Sections 354/506 of the I.P.C and
Section 3(w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4
2026:JHHC:11405
It is further submitted that the complainant during her
solemn affirmation (i.e., S.A.) has fully supported her case and
enquiry witnesses i.e., E.W.-1, E.W.-2 and E.W.-3 namely, Jai
Kishan Lal, Laxmi Sharma and Mahesh Kumar Ravi respectively
have fully supported the case of the complainant.
It is further submitted that the appellant is in habit of teasing
and harassing the woman and due to act of the appellant the life of
the Respondent No.2-victim has been harassed.
Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be
rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the
submissions of learned A.P.P., has submitted that the appellant is
not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.
It is further submitted that appellant had tried to molest her
on 02.05.2017 by thrashing her on the ground and tried to commit
rape upon her and kissed her in the working hour of the office.
It is further submitted that the complainant during her
solemn affirmation (i.e., S.A.) has fully supported the prosecution
case for kissing her and trying to commit rape upon her by the
appellant. It is further submitted that enquiry witnesses E.W.-1,
E.W.-2 and E.W.-3 namely, Jai Kishan Lal, Laxmi Sharma and
Mahesh Kumar Ravi respectively have fully have fully supported
the case of the complainant that the appellant had committed
illegal activities with the victim-Respondent No.2.
It is further submitted that due to act of the appellant the
informant-complainant has lost her job. It is submitted that even
the informant was examined by the Doctor at Sadar Hospital,
5
2026:JHHC:11405
Ramgarh and the photocopy of medical report of Doctor of Sadar
Hospital, Ramgarh has been enclosed in counter-affidavit as
Annexure- A.
Hence, in view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory
bail of the appellant may be rejected and this criminal appeal may
be dismissed.
8. Perused the Records of this case and considered the
submissions made on behalf of both sides.
9. It appears from the F.I.R. lodged by the informant against
the appellant that there is direct allegation against the appellant for
taking hold of her from behind and also tried to commit rape upon
her by thrashing her on the ground of office and who also kissed
her.
However, the police had submitted the final form in
favour of the appellant on 30.05.2017.
10. Thereafter, the victim girl-informant had filed protest-cum-
complaint Case No. 159 of 2018 on 19.04.2018 giving rise to
SC/ST Case No.06/2018 and in which the complainant was
examined on solemn affirmation (in short S.A.) on 04.05.2018
before the learned C.J.M., Ramgarh, however, three enquiry
witnesses, E.W.-1, E.W.-2 and E.W.-3 namely, Jai Kishan Lal
(father of informant), Laxmi Sharma (office colleague) and
Mahesh Kumar Ravi respectively were examined on 10.08.2018,
11.09.2018 & 11.09.2018 respectively before the learned Spl.
Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge 1st as the case was committed
before him on 11.07.2018 and they were also put to question from
the learned Court below.
6
2026:JHHC:11405
11. The complainant has stated by filing protest petition and
during her solemn affirmation that while she was siting in the
office on 02.05.2017 then the appellant tried to make indecent
behaviour with her and caught her from the behind and bite her
cheek and threatened her of dire consequences. Although her
father was outside the office who enquired on her, but she did not
tell anything to him. However, she had disclosed the above facts
to her office colleagues- Block Co- Ordinator and Social
Mobilizer-Ranjit Kumar Saw, Mahesh Ravi, Surrendra Tikka,
Ajay Munda, Janadan Munda and they advised her to institute the
case and then she came to Mahila P.S., Ramgarh, but police
officials refused to institute the case and then she filed an
application before Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh.
The complainant was asked Court’s question by the
learned trial Court and she stated that total 16 persons were
working in his department and she has informed about the incident
to one Laxmi Sharma.
Thus, the conduct of the informant reveals that she had
not informed the matter to her senior officials in her office.
12. E.W.-1 Jai Kishan Lal who is father of the informant had
stated that his daughter was working in Water Resources
Department (Peya Jall Sachchhta Vibhag) as a Co- Ordinator and
the appellant works there as a District Co- Ordinator. However,
when his daughter was sitting on chair and the appellant came
from behind and caught her and started teasing her and kissed her
cheek and bite her. He also alleged that the appellant also tried to
commit rape upon her by thrashing her on the ground and
threatened her of dire consequence, but his daughter came outside
7
2026:JHHC:11405
office anyhow from the clutches of the appellant and was weeping
and when he asked her then she did not say anything to him. Then
he took her with him and arrived at Kuju and her daughter has
informed the incident to her colleagues and then all went to police
station, but when her application was not received then she
submitted an application before Superintendent of Police,
Ramgarh. Although F.I.R. was lodged, but police has submitted
final form in favour of the appellant-accused by showing the
occurrence untrue. Hence, this protest-cum-complaint case was
filed.
During Court question, he stated that he was informed
about the occurrence on the same day by telephone from his
daughter then he informed this matter to his wife who was living
at a distance of 15-20 KM. Thereafter, he came directly to doctor
at Sadar Hospital where he had seen his daughter with friends and
doctor examined her and given injection and then matter was
reported to police.
The statement of E.W-1 reveals that he was not outside
the office of the informant, rather he was said to be at some other
place and he heard about the occurrence from his daughter on
mobile phone.
13. E.W.-2 is Laxmi Sharma, who also stated that informant
had asked cream (Malham) from her due to inflammation and she
informed that the appellant has used force and bite her cheek and
abused her in the name of her caste and he had also threatened to
remove her from the job. Thereafter, the appellant came to office
around 3.00 PM after the occurrence, and then she had been called
in the office of Executive Engineer where I.O. (Sakuntala Nag)
8
2026:JHHC:11405
took her statement and media persons were also present.
Thus, E.W.-2 is also a hearsay witness.
14. E.W.-3 is Mahesh Kumar Ravi, who also stated that she
informed about the occurrence at around 11.15 PM and prior to
this, she has not informed anything and she also works in the same
office where the informant is working.
Thus, E.W.-3 is also a hearsay witness.
15. It transpires that the learned Court below on the basis of
protest petition as well as solemn affirmation of the complainant-
informant and also on the basis of statement of witnesses namely,
Jai Kishan Lal, Laxmi Sharma and Mahesh Kumar Ravi i.e.,
E.W.-1, E.W.-2, E.W.-3, has taken cognizance under Sections 354
and 504 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
16. It also transpires that though the police has submitted the
final form in favour of the appellant on 30.05.2017, but the Trial
Court disbelieved the investigation conducted by the police
and the Court has taken cognizance under Section 354 and 504
and Section 3(w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Although the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections U/s-376/511 of
I.P.C. and Section ¾ of SC/ST Act.
17. It appears that the enquiry was conducted on 19.09.2017
by District Rural Development Authority, Ramgarh under the
supervision of following members:
i. Smt. Jyotsana Singh, Director, Accountant Administration
and Self-Employment, DRDA, Ramgarh.
ii. Smt. Monika Rani Tuti, Executive Magistrate, Ramgarh.
9
2026:JHHC:11405
iii. District Welfare Officer, Ramgarh.
iv. Child Development Project Officer, Dumli
v. Dr. Savita Verma, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital,
Ramgarh.
vi. District Social Welfare Officer, Ramgarh.
vii. Executive Engineer, Water and Sanitation Department,
Ramgarh.
Further also attended by the informant-Respondent No.2 and
the appellant-Jitendra Kumar Jha.
18. It further transpires that even the department had
conducted enquiry on 19.09.2017 under Director, but the
allegation was not found correct which is evident from Annexure-
S/1 series report dated 19.09.2017 which was duly signed by
Director, Executive Engineer, District Welfare Officer, District
Social Welfare Officer, Executive Engineer and others.
19. It also transpires that although the informant had made
complaint before the ST/SC commission against the appellant, but
final report of ST/SC commission has not been brought on record
by either side.
20. It appears that when the case listed on 01.05.2024 before
the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary), as
then his lordship passed an interim order in favour of the appellant
and which also continued on subsequent dates.
21. It appears that the learned counsel for the appellant has
made defective pleadings in the statement and had not taken case
to properly place the facts and has not even place the Annexure
while filing supplementary affidavit dated 23.09.2025 and for
which learned Court does not appreciate the conduct of the
10
2026:JHHC:11405
learned counsel for the appellant.
22. It transpires from the F.I.R. that the occurrence has taken
place inside the office and there is no public view and therefore, in
the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran
Singh Versus State reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710,
the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not attracted.
23. It has been held in Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, at Para 14 and 15
as follows:-
“Para 14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult
or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to
be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment reported
as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8
SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn
distinction between the expression “public place” and “in
any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road
or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary,
if the remark is made inside a building, but some members
of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it
would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic)
[Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated
below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435,
at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para
15, below: “Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence
since it is in the public view.”] . The Court held as under :
(SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the
first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which11
2026:JHHC:11405was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this
was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a
house is certainly a place within public view. It could have
been a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the public
view. However, if the offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be
seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary
wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public
view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but
some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or
friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression ”
place within public view” with the expression “public place”.
A place can be a private place but yet within the public view.
On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a
place which is owned or leased by the Government or the
municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an
instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or
private bodies.”
Para 15:- As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the
informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not
the case of the informant that there was any member of the
public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the
incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the
words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not
made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-
sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said
that those were the persons present within the four walls of
the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place
within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the
judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran
Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , it
cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was
said to be present within the four walls of the building as per
the FIR and/or charge-sheet.”
24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
appellant- Jitendra Kumar Jha is directed to surrender before the
learned Court below within four weeks (04) from today and in the
event of his arrest or surrender, the appellant is directed to be
12
2026:JHHC:11405
released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs.
Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the
satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in
connection with Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 05/2017 and also
subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be his own
relative of the appellant and also subject to conditions as laid
down under Section 482(2) (i) to (iv) of the BNSS, 2023.
25. Accordingly, the impugned order 17.06.2022 passed in
A.B.P. No. 135/2022 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1,
Ramgarh, is set aside.
26. Thus, the Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 548 of 2025 is allowed.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Pawan/
N.A.F.R
13
