2025:JHHC:21244 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3904 of 2025 ---- Amarjeet Kumar, S/o Sri Shyam Dev Prasad, R/o Mokama Ghat, Ward No 27, P.O. & P.S. Mokama, District Patna (Bihar). … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advoacte For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For the Informant: Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate ---- 03/ 29.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 376, 313, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur. 3. As per the First Information Report, it has been alleged that the informant was in friendship with the petitioner since 2007, when the informant was studying in intermediate. Informant had developed friendship while she and the petitioner used to have tuition together. From those days itself, she alleges that the petitioner used to have physical relation with the informant on the pretext that he loves her and will marry her. Afterwards, informant, for pursuing B.D.S. went to Rajasthan and during that time also petitioner used to meet the informant. It is alleged that after completion of studies, petitioner forcefully brought the informant to Jamshedpur as the petitioner was posted at LOC, DIGC, C.R.P.F., Jamshedpur Sundar Nagar. It is alleged that when she became pregnant, petitioner provided her medicine saying that he wants children after marriage. Thereafter it is alleged that while the petitioner remained posted at Dhurwa, he used to call the informant to meet at Park In Hotel. In April 2023 the petitioner was posted at his present place and petitioner was in visiting terms. Thereafter the petitioner on 3rd August, 2023 called her to Saket, Delhi where the petitioner used to reside with his friend. There she stayed from 3rd August till 21st August, 2023. Thereafter from 13th January till 17th January, she stayed at Room No.304 and when she asked the 2025:JHHC:21244 -: 2 :- petitioner for marriage, he declined and threatened her with dire consequences. Petitioner through his brother-in-law Ranjan Kumar also threatened the informant at her residence, on road and at her workplace. Informant also alleged to have made complaint with Mahila Thana, Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He argues that both the petitioner and the informant are major and from the manner of allegation, it transpires that the relationship between them was consensual. He further contended that the informant in her earlier complaint made before the Mahila Thana, Ranchi though had stated about their friendship since 2007, had not stated anything about sexual relationship rather had stated that it was petitioner who had first proposed in 2018 for marriage, which the informant had refused on the plea of her job. Learned counsel argued that the entire prosecution case is false and concocted, which lacks any essence to make out any offence against the petitioner. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Informant vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant submits that there is serious allegation on the petitioner of establishing physical relation with the informant, when she was a minor, on false pretext of marriage. Later on the petitioner denied marrying her and threatened her of dire consequences. He submits that it has come in course of investigation through independent witnesses that the petitioner used to regularly visit the residence of the informant. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that both the petitioner and the informant are major and are in relationship since long, i.e., from 2007, i.e. since last 17 years. It has been narrated by the informant herself that she often stayed with the petitioner. Even from the statement of witnesses recorded in course of investigation also it transpires that the petitioner regularly used to visit the residence of the informant at different places of her stay. The victim also stayed with the petitioner at Jamshedpur, Delhi and Ranchi. Further, there was no complaint made by the victim about the sexual intercourse, which, according to the victim had taken place in 2007, when she was minor and only in 2025, she has narrated the story. From the earlier complaint made by the informant/victim, it is clear that it is the petitioner, who had proposed to marry her, but the victim refused on the plea of her job. Considering all these 2025:JHHC:21244 -: 3 :- material, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within four weeks from today and in the event of his surrender and/or arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his own name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. Further, the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in every 15 days till submission of the Final Form/Chargesheet. 7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, allowed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03