[2026:JHHC:3845] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7444 of 2025 1. Sanjay Thakur, aged about 39 years, Son of Sudama Thakur, 2. Kunti Devi, aged about 45 years, wife of Sanjay Thakur, Both Resident of Village- Goradih, P.O.- Goradih & P.S.- Mohmmadganj, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. ------ 03/ 12.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mohammadganj P.S. Case No. 66 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 74, 64(1), 62, 126(2), 115(2), 108, 351(2)(3), 352, 329(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO, Palamau at Daltonganj. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that only the petitioners happen to be the parents of main accused Rahul Thakur, who was caught red handed while establishing physical relation with the minor girl, in view of that, they may be provided the privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the independent witness at para-51 of the case diary has stated that the parents come to the house of the victim girl and they have threatened her and humiliated her and in view of that she has committed suicide. 5. In para-51 of the case diary, it has come that one Raj [2026:JHHC:3845] -2- Kumar Sharma has stated that these petitioners have come to the house of the victim and threatened her as well as humiliated her and also assaulted her, which prima facie suggests that the role of these petitioners is also there. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 7. It is made clear that if the petitioners surrender before the learned court by way of filing regular bail application, the learned trial court will decide the same in accordance with law without prejudice to this order. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-12.02.2026 Amitesh/-