( 2025:JHHC:30591 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8687 of 2025 ------ Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Mahto, aged about 32 years, Son of Jaglal Mahto, Male, Permanent Resident of Village –Murupiri, P.O. –Murupiri, P.S. –Burmu, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN Code -835214, bearing Aadhar Number -9462 8199 0814. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, 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 Dhurwa (Tupudana O.P.) P.S. Case No.137 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 69 and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the informant by adopting deceitful means and by suppressing the fact that he was earlier married, kept the informant as his wife for three years in a rented accommodation but on the informant insisting for marriage, the petitioner fled away by taking all the belongings of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and this is a case of one sided love. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –12 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.06.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 13 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. 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 keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has adopted deceitful means by suppressing the fact that he was earlier married and had sexual intercourse with the victim on several occasions; there is every chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail. 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/