[2025:JHHC:24082] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3183 of 2025 ------ Siraj Ansari @ Md. Siraj Ahmad, aged about 23 years Son of Murshid Ansari, Resident of Village- Birajpur, P.O. & P.S.- Karmatar, Dist.- Jamtara .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate ------ Order No.03 Dated- 18-08-2025 I.A. No.8949 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of the instant bail application. Since, the hearing of instant bail application is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) B.A. No.3183 of 2025 The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Karmatanr P.S. Case No.60 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.132 of 2024) registered under Section 376, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that so far as three witnesses have been examined but except the P.W.3, the remaining witnesses have turned hostile. It is also submitted that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.08.2024. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the prosecutrix and also threatening her to kill if the matter is reported to the police and out of fear and being terrorized by the petitioner, the informant could not lodge the F.I.R. immediately after the occurrence and only after her husband returned back from Pune, the F.I.R. was lodged and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is explained. It is also submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail as the petitioner is a terror in the locality. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/