[2025:JHHC:15065] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3886 of 2025 ------ Nijam @ Najam Ansari @ Nijam Ansari, aged about 27 years, son of Safique @ Fugli Mian, resident of village Machiyadih, P.O. & P.S. Naryanpur, District Jamtara .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11-06-2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a supplementary affidavit. Let the same be kept in the record. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No.06 of 2025 registered under Section 96, 64, 126 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co- accused persons, committed rape upon the minor victim girl and sexually exploited her after procuring her for the same. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner has solemnized marriage (Nikaah) with the victim. It is next submitted that there is a delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.01.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and submit that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the minor victim girl, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence in view of the influence of the petitioner 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, if released on bail, 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 at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/