IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.7603 of 2024 ------ Shahjamal Sheikh, aged about 22 years, son of Gumani Shekh @ Ash Mohmmad Shekh, resident of village Devtalla, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur (M), Dist.-Pakur, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. P.P For the Informant : Mr. Deepankar, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 25.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.51 of 2024 instituted under Sections 363 and 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner has enticed away the minor girl for solemnizing marriage with her and kidnapped her. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C the minor victim has categorically stated that petitioner has committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/