IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.808 of 2025 ------ Priyanshu Kumar, Aged about 19 years, S/O- Pankaj Kumar, R/O- Street No. 68, Quarter No.35/A, S.P. North, Phuljhuri, P.O. + P.S.- Chittaranjan, District- Burdhaman Paschim (West Bengal). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 06-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No.82 of 2024 registered under Sections 64, 351 (2) (3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 66 (E) and 67 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon the informant and made video of such occurrence and threatened to make the same viral in social media. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the victim is a major girl. It is further submitted that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-13 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that only after the petitioner threatened to make the sexually explicit material viral then only the informant lodged this F.I.R. and that explains the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing rape, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case as well as recovery of the sexually explicit material. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/