2026:JHHC:4282 --1-- A.B.A. No. 364 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 364 of 2026 ---- Jay Prakash Roy @ Jai Prakash Rai @ Paltu Rai, aged about 44 years, son of Late Chandrama Rai, resident of Qtr. No. GF 1, South Colony, Pathardih, PO and PS – Pathardih, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate :- Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the Informant :- Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate :- Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate ---- 03/13.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.19 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 64(2)(m), 74, 75(2), 76, 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner and lady, who has lodged the case, they were in relationship since long and belatedly a case has been lodged against the petitioner alleging that this petitioner was forcing the lady to have 2026:JHHC:4282 --2-- A.B.A. No. 364 of 2026 relationship with others. He then submits that so far allegation of making intimate videos is concerned that is also false. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and Informant jointly opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner has made the video of 30 minutes that is of intimate relationship and that has been produced in pen drive before the learned Court which has been marked as exhibit. On this ground, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the contents of the FIR, the allegations are made how the relationship developed between the petitioner and the informant, who is a lady. She has stated that the intimate video has been kept by the petitioner and she was being threatened to made it viral. In paragraph No.36 of the case diary the said video in the pen drive has been produced that is of 30 minutes and having the relationship is one of the aspect, however, to take away the dignity of woman that too in such a way is a serious crime and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 13.02.2026 Sangam/