2025:JHHC:20488 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3865 of 2025 ----- Sanjay Rana @ Sanjay Kumar Rana, S/o Subeshwar Rana, R/o Vill- Amba Nachaniya, P.O. & P.S.- Sarath, District- Deoghar. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Majumdar, Senior Advocate (Through VC) Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State: Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. ---- 05/ 23.07.2025 Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner through video conferencing and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Sarath P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madhupur. 3. As per the First Information Report, it has been alleged that on 07.05.2025, informant was alone in the house and when she went outside for nature’s call, the petitioner caught hold of her with bad intentions and forcibly made physical relation. The petitioner also threatened her with dire consequences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submits that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the informant’s husband regarding returning of money that the informant’s husband took from petitioner. Therefore, with an intention to extort money, the informant and her husband planned to institute this false case against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel representing the state has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the act of the petitioner is heinous in nature and there are sufficient materials on record that support the allegations. The petitioner used to establish physical relation with the informant by putting her under fear of death of her husband. 2025:JHHC:20488 -: 2 :- 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that there is serious and direct allegation against the petitioner. From the statements of witnesses examined in course of investigation, whose statements are at paragraphs 06 and 07, namely, Devendra Tanti and Lakshman Singh have stated that the victim had disclosed the entire occurrence as narrated in the First Information Report to the villagers. They also stated that on seeing the villagers, the petitioner had fled. It has also come in the case diary that the petitioner is evading investigation. 7. Considering all these facts, since extensive investigation is required even in presence of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 8. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03