[2025:JHHC:38424] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5630 of 2025 Ramesh Bharti, aged about 33 years, Son of Nihal Chand Ram, R/o Ward No. 9, P.O.-Makri, Bhavnathpur, District-Garhwa (Jharkhand). ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate. ------ 05/ 20.12.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 69 and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the informant were in relationship since 2023 and it has been alleged that on the false pretext of marriage, the relationship was established. He next submits that the petitioner is still ready to marry with the informant and to buttress his argument, he refers to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein WhatsApp chat copies have been annexed. He then submits that what has happened that is consensual in nature and in view of that the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner may kindly be provided. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant have jointly opposed the prayer. Learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the petitioner happened to be the police sub-inspector and he has manipulated the things. He next [2025:JHHC:38424] -2- submits that this petitioner has taken the private video of the informant and on the basis of that the petitioner was blackmailing the informant. 5. In reply, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the sub-inspector of police, rather he is working on the post of wireless operator in the police department. He submits that so far as video part allegation, as argued by the learned counsel appearing for the informant is concerned, that allegation is not in the FIR. 6. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the petitioner and the informant were in relationship since 2023 and that has continued and several times they have met, however, the FIR has been lodged on 03.07.2025. In the contents of the FIR, there is no allegation of taking the video and blackmailing by the petitioner. In light of the supplementary affidavit, wherein the WhatsApp chat has been annexed, prima facie suggests that the petitioner is still ready to marry with the informant. 7. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender before the learned court within four weeks from today and in the event of his surrender / arrest, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-20.12.2025 Amitesh/-