IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1911 of 2025 ------ Md. Waris Ansari, son of Md. Moin Ansari, aged about 32 years, resident of Village-Lalbazar, P.O.-Khorimahua, P.S.- Dhanwar, Dist.-Giridih … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 27.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sarai P.S. Case No.233 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 376/313 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon the victim and caused miscarriage of her child without her consent. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is a delay of more than a year in lodging the FIR and the victim is a major lady. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the anticipatory bail application. It is then submitted that the doctor whose prescription has been annexed with the FIR has confirmed that the victim was treated by her but she stated that she did not carry out the termination of pregnancy. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation of committing rape upon the victim; finding her alone in the house, by using force. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant that nowhere, it has been mentioned in the FIR that the doctor Nafisha has caused the termination of pregnancy of the victim and keeping in view the serious nature of allegation, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-