( 2025:JHHC:25438 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No.4733 of 2025 Adarshjee Anand, aged about 36 years, Son of Mr. Ramanand, Resident of Brahmani Road, Old Baridih, P.O. – Baridih, P.S. – Sidgora, Town- Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pandey A.N. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. ------ 2/25.08.2025 Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.04 of 2025, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 69, 89 and 91 of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submits that on 19.06.2025, the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 84 of BNSS, 2023 has been issued against the petitioner. In spite of that, he submits that the anticipatory bail can be maintained and that is the recent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Cr. Appeal No.4564 of 2024 @ SLP (Criminal) No.13123 of 2024. 4. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is not fit in the given circumstances, as both are adult, the physical ( 2025:JHHC:25438 ) 2 relationship has been established with consent. On these grounds, learned senior counsel submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that serious allegations are made against the petitioner and the petitioner even has taken the girl to several doctors for abortion and by way of false promise and in the garb of providing the job to the victim, the relationship has been established. He submits in these backgrounds; this is not a case for anticipatory bail. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials available on record and this Court is conscious of the fact that the liberty of any person cannot be taken lightly and the Courts has right for appraisal of the facts of each case, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail is required to be granted by the Court. 7. The Court has no doubt in mind that in exceptional circumstances, even after issuing notice under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 84 of BNSS, 2023 the anticipatory bail can be maintained and what will the exceptional circumstances, that will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. In the case relied upon by the learned senior counsel in the case of Asha Dubey (Supra), that case was arising out of Dowry Prohibition Act, the husband was already in custody, and the mother- in-law, the bail application has been refused, that was the situation, and in view of that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that in such a ( 2025:JHHC:25438 ) 3 situation, the petitioner of that case is required to grant anticipatory bail and in view of that, that order has been passed. 9. The facts of the present case are otherwise. There are serious allegations against the petitioner to exploit the victim by way of taking the victim to several hotels on the ground of providing job to her. The petitioner has taken the victim to several doctors for abortion. It appears that the physical relation was not consensual and by way of duping the girl, that has been established. In these backgrounds, it is not a case of consensual relationship. As such, the argument of the learned senior counsel is not being accepted. 10. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) R.Kumar