IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.907 of 2025 ------ Amir Hamza Shekh @ Mister @ Poultry aged about 31 years, son of Serajul Shekh @ Serjaul Sk residence of Village-Jankinagar, P.O.- Prithwinagar, P.S. Pakur (M), Dist.-Pakur, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Pakur (town) P.S. Case No.273 of 2024 registered under Sections 74, 79, 64, 62, 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner committed rape upon the victim/prosecutrix and outraged her modesty by using criminal force. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that this false case has been foisted against the petitioner to put pressure upon him to withdraw Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.120 of 2023. It is lastly submitted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation upon petitioner for committing rape upon the victim. It is further submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner indulging the different kind of offences, if given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, as well as 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 petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/