[2025:JHHC:10974] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 2267 of 2025 Rahul Kumar Singh, aged about 24 years, son of Birender Singh, Resident of village Hedum, P.O. and police station - Lawalong District - Chatra … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Adv. Mr. Hadish Ansari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. PP For the informant : Mr. Anupam Anand, Adv. Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv. 02 / 09.04.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Lawalong P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n), 504, 506, 34 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused persons, have committed penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl and subsequently also continued the same for a considerable period of time. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view of serious allegation against the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-