2025:JHHC:19827 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1172 of 2025 ------ 1. Raju Prasad, S/o Late Neero Mahto 2. Dilip Prasad @ Dilip Kumar, S/o Govind Prasad 3. Ranjeet Prasad @ Ranjeet Kumar, S/o Jhaman Prasad … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kishore, Advocate ----- 05/ 18.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest, for offences under Sections 376(D), 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. 3. The allegation in the F.I.R., which has been registered based upon a complaint, is that these three petitioners on the point of knife had taken the victim and thereafter committed rape upon her. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that though from the face of the records, the offences seem to be heinous but it is absolutely a false implication. He submits that the entire dispute arose because of work allotted in MGNREGA. He submits that the victim and another person having same name were enlisted. The amount which the lady having same name as that of the victim was entitled to receive, was wrongly transferred in the account of the victim. When these petitioners who were 2025:JHHC:19827 2 working, demanded refund of the said money, this informant avoided and thereafter filed the complaint. He further submits that this fact would be clear from the written report filed by Damyanti Kumari (wife of one of the accused), which is a part of the case diary. He lastly submits that falsity of the case will be substantiated from the fact that there is delay of more than two months in filing of complaint, and the victim herself refused to appear for medical examination. 5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that though there is an allegation but in the case diary, there is one letter which suggests that because of two ladies having same name, confusion arose and the amount of one person was deposited in the account of this petitioner and to avoid refunding of the amount, this false case has been filed. He also admits that there is a delay in filing of complaint and there is no medical report of the victim on record. 6. Learned counsel representing the informant / victim also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the allegation is heinous and all these petitioners have committed rape upon her on the point of knife. 7. Considering the submission of learned A.P.P. and the fact that there is no medical report and there is a delay in filing complaint and also the fact that there is some dispute in respect of payment of amount of MGNREGA Scheme, I am inclined to allow this application. 8. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. The petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender 2025:JHHC:19827 3 before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of their surrender or arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih, in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.173 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his / her name or in the name of his / her ancestors in which he / she is having share and to that effect, he / she has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3