( 2026:JHHC:19153 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 2320 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2320 of 2026 Shashi Kant Singh, aged about 26 years, S/o Upendra Singh, R/o Usku, P.O. Murupiri, P.S. Burmu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ----- 03/01.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Budmu P.S. Case No.8/2026, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 89, 69, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate XVII at Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. She further submits that what has happened, that was consensual in nature. She then submits that the relationship was established since last one year and, thereafter, by way of creating a concocted story, the present case has been lodged. On these grounds, she submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that serious allegations are there against the petitioner. He further submits that even threatening was given to the victim by the petitioner. He also submits that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case in the case diary. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. ( 2026:JHHC:19153 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 2320 of 2026 5. On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that there are allegations of forcefully establishing relationship for the first time i.e. one year prior of lodging of the FIR. Further, the allegations are there that when the victim has become pregnant, she was taken to clinic and forcefully abortion was made. The allegations are also made of creating video and threatening was given to make the video viral. Not only that, even the allegations are also there to threaten the victim on telephone and call recordings are also there. The victim was residing in the house of maternal aunt and the maternal aunt has been examined in para 13 of the case diary and she has also supported the version of the victim. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 7. Interim order, granted earlier by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2026, stands vacated. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 1st July, 2026 Ajay/