( 2025:JHHC:19925 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5858 of 2025 ------ Bhairavlal Mahto, aged about 24 years, son of Lakshman Mahto, resident of Mantand, P.O. & P.S.-Topchachi, Dist.- Dhanbad … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Mahto, Advocate : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 21.07.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No.02 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 342/ 452/ 376/ 504/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape upon the victim at the point of gun. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.22 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.03.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 06 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the informant with the aid of his brother and his one friend at the point of gun claiming to be a member of extremist organization. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the victim has supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/