IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.183 of 2025 ------ Rohit Kumar Singh, aged about 26 years, S/o Raj Mohan Singh, R/o Village Banai, P.O. & P.S. Panki, District Palamau. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 20/01/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.104 of 2024 instituted under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail and the earlier prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail was rejected in A.B.A. No.6197 of 2024 because the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioner, but, in the meanwhile, vide order dated 04.12.2024 in Cr.M.P. No.3289 of 2024, the same has been quashed and set aside and, thereafter, this second anticipatory bail application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner established physical relationship with the victim on the promise of marriage but did not marry her. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the allegation of establishing physical relationship with the informant is an afterthought as though the informant prior to lodging of this FIR, filed complaint case no.860 of 2024 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medininagar, Palamau, but there is no whisper of any physical relationship between the victim and the petitioner. It is next submitted that earlier the victim also submitted a complaint in writing to the employer of the petitioner, the copy of which has been kept in Page-31-32 of this anticipatory bail application and also there is absolutely no whisper of any physical relationship having been established by the petitioner with the victim. It is next submitted that in the FIR, there is no allegation that at the time of making the promise by the petitioner to marry the victim, he had no intention to marry her and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that the petitioner is undisputedly a personnel of CISF, hence, there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with evidence, as he is staying in Gujarat. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.1,00,000/- as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.104 of 2024 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/