IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.842 of 2025 ------ Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Prasad @ Prasad, aged about 27 years, son of Basudev Saw, Resident of Darukharika, P.O.- Darukharika P.S.- Daru, District- Hazaribag. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated-06-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Daru P.S. Case No.138 of 2024 instituted under Sections 69/89/351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon the victim. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was having relationship with the victim for over ten years. It is then submitted that the case has been instituted against the petitioner only because there was love affair between the petitioner and the informant. It is then submitted that no cogent reason has been assigned for the delay in filing the FIR. It is further submitted that the informant is a major lady and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-21 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate 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 and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submit that Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023 envisages punishment for sexual intercourse by making a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same but it also covers sexual intercourse by deceitful means and the words deceitful means “has been explained that the same shall include inducement for sexual intercourse also”. It is next submitted that not only the petitioner by deceitful means without any intention of fulfilling the same had sexual intercourse with the victim but even when the petitioner made up mind not to marry the informant, still he forcibly ravished the victim by calling her in a hotel in the guise of discussing about marriage with her. It is next submitted that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case, 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 to find out the details of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner be given. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/