2026:JHHC:12314 --1-- A.B.A. No. 1792 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1792 of 2026 ---- Sona Bachcha Yadav @ Sona Prasad Yadav, aged about 36 years, son of Bhikham Prasad Yadav, resident of village – Jatpura, PO and PS – Bishunpura, District – Garhwa .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Advocate ---- 02/27.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bishunpura P.S. Case No.05 of 2026 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 376, 385 and 323 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagar Untari. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as the wife of this petitioner has lodged the case on 14.05.2024 being Complaint Case No.223 of 2024 alleging of instigating the wife of the petitioner to have relationship against the husband of the informant. He further submits that in view of that the present case is retaliation of the said case and the allegations are made of establishing 2026:JHHC:12314 --2-- A.B.A. No. 1792 of 2026 relationship which are false. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that serious allegations are there of forcefully entering into the house of the informant and establishing relationship. He further submits that even she was threatened to kill the husband and her children at one point of time when she has not gone to the place where the petitioner has called. He then submits that in the case diary itself facts are supported by the witnesses. 5. There is no doubt that there are case and counter case of almost similar nature, however, it is alleged in the present case against the petitioner that he has forcefully entered into the house and established relationship on several time with the informant and even at one point of time he has threatened to kill the husband and children of the informant and learned counsel appearing for the State pointed out that independent witnesses have supported the case in the case diary. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 27.04.2026 Sangam/