[2025:JHHC:29340] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4455 of 2025 Amit Ranjan, aged about 26 years, Son of Avinash Kumar, R/o Bagbera Ramnagar, Near Bajrang Bali Maidan, P.O.-Tatanagar, P.S-Bagbera, Bagbera Colony, Jamshedpur; District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Avnish Prakhar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Bandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate. ------ 04/ 22.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 85, 89, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, as the earlier case for nullity of marriage was filed and thereafter the present FIR has been lodged. On this ground, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and she refers to para-95 of the case diary and submits that multiple healed mark of burn upon the body of the informant are there, which clearly suggests that the petitioner has [2025:JHHC:29340] -2- tortured the informant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant has also vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that in the counter affidavit, the photographs have been annexed, wherefrom it can be safely inferred that how the informant has been tortured by the petitioner. 6. In para-95 of the case diary, it has come that multiple healed mark of burn on the back and front of breast was seen, which are within three to four months, which is further supported in light of the photographs produced in the sealed cover in the counter affidavit filed by the informant. 7. In view of the above and considering the allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to provide the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-22.09.2025 Amitesh/-