IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.810 of 2025 ------ Md. Firoz, aged about 30 years, Son of Md. Mosraf, Resident of Village- Chandpur, P.O.- Devanchak, P.S.- Meharma, District- Godda .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, 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 Meharma P.S. Case No.139 of 2023 registered under Sections 417 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape upon the informant/victim. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the case of the prosecution is highly improbable. It is further submitted that the informant subsequently has also instituted P.C.R. Case No.96 of 2024 against her husband and other relatives. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-14 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 considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of commission of rape upon the informant/victim, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. 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/