( 2025:JHHC:22738 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6712 of 2025 ------ Sanu Sk, aged about 42 years, Son of Late Juhak Sk. @ Nureslam Sk., resident of village-Patharghatta, Muslim Tola, P.O.-Pakur, P.S.- Pakur Malpahari (OP), District-Pakur (Jharkhand). At present residing at Village-Gopalpur, Barua Gopalpur, P.O. & P.S.-Murarai, District-Birbhum (West Bengal). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 08-08-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sessions Trial No.139 of 2024 arising out of Pakur (Mahila) P.S. Case No.73 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 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 by threatening her with a knife. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that because of land dispute, this false case has been foisted, though, one of the witnesses has been examined in the trial and supported the case of the prosecution, but the victim is yet to be examined. It is next submitted that there are several contradictions in the testimony of the PW-1. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.12.2024 as is evident from para-17 of the instant bail application. 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 and specific allegation against the petitioner of ravishing the prosecutrix by threatening her with a knife; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/