IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4721 of 2024 ------ Sunil Kumar Shukla, aged about 42 years, Son of Ram Pravesh Shukla, Resident of Village –Singra, P.O. –Singra Khurd, P.S. –Daltonganj, District –Palamau. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kuku Kumari, D/o Govind Ram, R/o village Singra Khurd, P.O. & P.S. –Daltonganj, District –Palamau. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.05 Dated- 27.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Protest- cum-Complaint Case No. 1069 of 2016 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 452/120B/376G/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act wherein cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 341/460/376D of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-b) of the Arms Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons, committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and police after investigation of the case, found the allegation against the petitioner to be false and did not send the petitioner for trial. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the complainant in Complaint Case No. 79 of 2012 in which, the father of the victim was the accused, hence, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to annoy or disturb the complainant or her family member in any manner during pendency of the case. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused person has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2023 in A.B.A. No. 8455 of 2023. Hence, the petitioner be also given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Complaint Case No. 1069 of 2016 subject to the condition that the petitioner will not to annoy or disturb the complainant or her family member in any manner during pendency of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section subject to the conditions laid down under section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-