( 2025:JHHC:30618 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8739 of 2025 ------ Pankaj Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Amrendra Kumar, resident of Janta Nagar, F.O. Type, P.T.P.S., Post Patratu, Police Station Patratu, District-Ramgarh. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 26-09-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No.11 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 74, 329(4), 351, 352 & 64(1) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner captured objectionable video of the informant and made physical relationship with her, by threatening to make the said video viral. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that in her statement under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023 there is serious allegation against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the informant has not stated in the FIR that petitioner committed rape upon her. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.06.2025 as is evident from para-15 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the FIR is not the encyclopedia of the prosecution case and since there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the informant, that has come in her statement under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023, hence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, more so because of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and he is also having a criminal antecedent which has been mentioned in supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and also the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 26/09/2025 Abhiraj/