IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1692 of 2025 ------ Hari Mohan Marandi, aged about 33 years, Son of Late Kenu Marandi, Resident of Village- Khadharamal, P.O.- Mohanpur, P.S Mohanpur, District- Godda, Jharkhand- 814154 .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate Ms. Aulia Beguma, Advocate Md. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate Mr. Akash Kr. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-12-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Shikaripara P.S. Case No.31 of 2021 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon the victim repeatedly. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner is Sub- Inspector of Police and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of first committing rape upon the informant and subsequently trying to restrain the informant from approaching police on the promise of marriage. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not co- operating with the investigation of the case and since the FIR was registered on 08.03.2021; the petitioner is absconding. It is then submitted that keeping in view serious nature of allegations against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as also his conduct is not co-operating with the investigation of the case for the last four years, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/