2026:JHHC:20068 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3598 of 2026 ------ Dibyendu Das Roy, aged about 30 years, son of Susrota Das Roy, Resident of Pradhan Tola, Gurudwara Parsudin, P.O. Tatanagar, P.S. Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Altamas Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Viaks Kumar, Advocate ------ 02/08.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 64(1), 67, 73, 115(2), 308(2), 308(3), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the allegations of forcibly establishing the physical relationship are not correct. He further submits that the occurrence is of the year 2023, whereas the complaint case has been lodged on 28.01.2026. He next submits that an informatory petition was filed by the petitioner before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 27.01.2026. He also submits that the informant is a married lady and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the allegations are there of forcibly establishing the physical relationship and further blackmailing the informant and even the photographs have been taken and threatening has been made to make the same viral. On these grounds, they submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 2026:JHHC:20068 5. There is no doubt that the first occurrence is of January, 2023 and the complaint case has been lodged on 28.01.2026 which has been converted into FIR however, allegations are there of blackmailing the informant and further taking the video and threatening to put it on the social media. Having relationship is one of the aspect however, taking away the privacy of any lady is a serious matter, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 08.07.2026 Anit Uploaded 09.07.2026