IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.820 of 2025 ------ Vikash Kumar Ravi aged about 18 years son of Dara @ Dayanand Ram, resident of village Ranpura, P.O. Ranpura, P.S. Chiniya, District Garhwa. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-06-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Chiniya Town P.S. Case No.31 of 2024 instituted under Sections 115(2)/64/351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon the victim on 08.07.2024. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that admittedly prior to that also, the petitioner made physical relationship with the victim on the false pretext of marriage for eight months, so, the case of the petitioner is highly improbable. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a young boy of 18 years and admittedly, there was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim. It is then submitted that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-12 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing 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 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the victim on 08.07.2024; hence, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/