[2025:JHHC:18116] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5467 of 2025 ------ Ranjit Kumar S/o Gyani Prasad Aged about 29 years R/o Village- Kari, P.O.- Tilaiya Dam, P.S.- Jayanagar, Tilaiya Dam O.P., District- Koderma, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. X .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeetendra Kr. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 07-07-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No.464 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.614 of 2025 registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape upon the informant and criminally intimidated her. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case. It is also submitted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.02.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the informant and capturing the objectionable photographs of the informant and threatening her of dire consequences and also criminally intimidating her. It is further submitted that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. 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/