2026:JHHC:14822 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2524 of 2026 ------ Prince Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Binod Kumar, resident of Tamulia Kapali Dobo, P.O. and P.S. Chandil, District Seraikela Kharsawan .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Ajmani, A.P.P. For the Informant : Ms. Soniya Hansda, Advocate ------ 02/14.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 18 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 75, 78, 65(1), 352 and 79 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act pending in the court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the FIR itself, it has been stated that the petitioner and informant were in relationship four years prior of lodging of the FIR. He submits that even marriage has been solemnized between the petitioner and the informant and to buttress his argument, he refers to Annexure 2 which is marriage certificate issued by Marriage Registrar, Government of Jharkhand. He next submits that false allegation is made of keeping the video which is clear in view of the fact that Information Technology Act is not added in the FIR. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the allegations are there of establishing relationship four years prior of lodging of the FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that it is true that the marriage has been solemnized before the Registrar however, the informant has not resided along with the petitioner after the marriage. She submits that the allegations are there of 2026:JHHC:14822 editing the photo in digital mode and blackmailing the informant. On these grounds, she submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 6. Looking to the contents of the FIR, it transpires that there is statement that the petitioner and the informant were in relationship four years prior of lodging of the FIR and the marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Registrar, Government of Jharkhand has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the informant which clearly suggests that the marriage has been solemnized and prima facie, from the WhatsApp chat which is Annexure 3, it transpires that what has happened, that was consensual in nature. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 18 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 15.05.2026