IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 10767 of 2023 ------ Mehtab Alam, aged about 42 years, S/o Manjur Ali, R/o Khirasar Surham Deoria, P.O. –Khukhundoo, P.S. –Deoria, District –Deoria, Uttar Pradesh. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Uma Nayak, S/o Late Sudhir Chandra Nayak, R/o Village –Shankosai Kharia Basti, Road No.4, Dimna Road, Bagan Ke Piche, P.S. –Mango, District –East Singhbhum at Jameshedpur. … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate : Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.14 Dated- 22.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mango Olidih P.S. Case No.306 of 2022 registered under sections 323/379/ 376/420/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons committed rape upon the victim by concealing the fact that he belongs to Muslim Community and that he was earlier married having two children and has cheated the informant by dishonestly inducing her to part with Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner and the informant voluntarily became friends but as the petitioner turned down the request of the informant to marry her, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that this is a clear-cut case where the consent for establishing physical relationship was obtained fraudulently by suppressing the material facts. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the cheated amount and also for finding out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation for recovery of the cheated amount and also for finding out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-