( 2026:JHHC:15939 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A No. 2863 of 2026 Islam Ansari @ Md. Islam Ansari ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Kr Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Faiyaj Alam, Advocate Mr. Praveen Shankar Pd., Advocate --- Order No. 02/ Dated: 2nd June, 2026 Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kr Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P assisted by Mr. Praveen Shankar Pd. learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 197 of 2025. 3. It has been alleged that on the pretext of marriage the petitioner had established physical relationship with the informant and had also made obscene video and photograph of the informant. Subsequently, the engagement was done but at the last moment the petitioner had refused to solemnize marriage and had also threatened to upload the obscene video and photographs in the social media. 4. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the marriage was broken on account of the fact that the petitioner has a physical disability of stammering. 5. Learned counsel submits that an informatory petition has been submitted by the mother of the petitioner. 6. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the First Information Report clearly reveals that it was at the instance of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the informant could not have been solemnized. 8. It appears from the allegations made that the petitioner had sexually exploited the informant on the pretext of marriage and that at the last moment he had backed out. Though it has been submitted by learned counsel ( 2026:JHHC:15939 ) for the petitioner that physical disability was one of the reasons for the informant not being able to solemnize the marriage with the petitioner, but no iota of evidence has been brought on record in support of such contention. 9. In view of the aforesaid, therefore, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. 10. This application stands rejected. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 2nd June, 2026 Vedanti/- Uploaded on 5th June, 2026