( 2025:JHHC:30596 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8704 of 2025 ------ Rahul Kumar Singh, aged about 33 years, Sex-Male, S/o – Mohan Singh, R/o –Obra Aanraj Nawadih, P.O. Aanraj Nawadih, P.S. –Garhwa, District –Garhwa, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Kr. Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 26.09.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Nagri P.S. Case No.151 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 376, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.05.2025 in B.A. No. 3816 of 2025 and vide order dated 26.08.2025 in B.A. (Filing) No. 17824 of 2025 and prior to that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.04.2025 in A.B.A. No. 6991 of 2024. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape upon the prosecutrix by threatening her to kill her children and husband. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is then submitted that the informant is a major lady. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence by threatening the informant, her husband and children. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 26.09.2025 Sonu-Gunjan/