2026:JHHC:14473 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 618 of 2026 ------ 1. Girija Devi, aged about 50 years, widow of Late Muni Pasi 2. Reena Devi @ Reena Kunwar, wife of Shri Rakesh Choudhary, aged about 35 years 3. Sunil Choudhary, aged about 24 years, son of Muni Choudhary All are residents of Village Bisodih, P.O. Hirodih, P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 956 of 2026 ------ 1. Kanchan Devi, aged about 42 years, wife of Hemlal Pasi, resident of Village Kasiyadih, P.O. Kapilo, P.S. Suriya Kapilo, District Giridih 2. Sulekha Devi @ Sulekha Masomat, aged about 35 years, wife of Raju Choudhary, resident of Village Barkagaon, P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh 3. Shrawan Pasi @ Sarman Choudhary, aged about 20 years, son of Hemlal Pasi, resident of Village Kasiyadih, P.O. Kapilo, P.S. Suriya Kapilo, District Giridih .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate (In A.B.A. No. 618 of 2026) Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate (In A.B.A. No. 956 of 2026) For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Special P.P. (In both cases) For the Informant : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate (In A.B.A. No. 618 of 2026) ------ 02/12.05.2026 Both these petitions are arising out of the same FIR and in view of that, both these petitions have been heard together. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 77, 351(3) and 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 2026:JHHC:14473 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appearing in A.B.A. No. 618 of 2026 submits that so far petitioner no.1- Girija Devi is concerned, she has already been arrested and in view of that he is not pressing the anticipatory bail application on behalf of petitioner no.1- Girija Devi. 4. In view of his such submission, anticipatory bail application on behalf of petitioner no.1- Girija Devi in A.B.A. No. 618 of 2026 is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appearing in A.B.A. No. 618 of 2026 submits that at present now anticipatory bail application survives only for petitioner nos.2 and 3. He submits that false allegations have been made of making the video viral and demanding the money. He further submits that if any allegations are there of making the video viral, that is against Kanchan Devi. In view of that, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 6. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appearing in A.B.A. No. 956 of 2026 submits that there are general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated in the case alleging to make the video viral and demand of money. He next submits that the video is said to be recorded four years back and after four years, the FIR has been registered. He also submits that no expert evidence is there with regard to video. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the allegations are there against all the petitioners of making the video viral and for deleting the same, demand was made to the tune of Rupees Two Lakhs. 8. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the independent witnesses have been examined in the case diary and they have supported the case of the prosecution and even the video has been taken in the pen drive that has come in para 14 of the case diary and certificate is there 2026:JHHC:14473 under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 9. In the FIR, the informant has alleged that her Devar made her obscene video through video calling and sent to the accused petitioners and thereafter, the accused petitioners sent the obscene video to her villagers and make it viral to defame her reputation and break the relation of her daughter. When the informant protested, accused petitioners started abusing her threatened to upload her video in Facebook and Instagram. In para 2, 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary, the informant and witnesses have supported the case and the petitioners are named in the FIR and there are serious allegations against them of making the video viral and takes away the right of privacy. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners are hereby, rejected. Both these petitions are dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 14.05.2026