( 2026:JHHC:21573 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3146 of 2026 Indrajeet Mahto son of Jawaharlal Mahto, aged about 32 years, resident of Goswami Tola, Balidih, P.O.-Balidih, P.S. Balidih, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. 02/ 22.07.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026, registered under sections 69, 64, 127(2), 351(2) of BNS, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that informant and petitioner were in relationship since last two years. He next submits that alleged occurrence is dated 14.04.2024 whereas F.I.R has been lodged on 14.02.2026. He further submits that what has happened that is consensual in nature. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that friend of the victim has supported the case of prosecution in para 7 of the case diary. He next submits that medical examination report is in para 25 of the case diary. He further submits that allegations are made of intoxicating the victim thereafter physical relationship has been made and thereafter assurance was made by the petitioner that he will solemnize marry with the victim and further allegations are there against the petitioner of demanding ( 2026:JHHC:21573 ) Rs. 20 lakh by the petitioner for solemnizing marriage. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. In the F.I.R. there is direct allegation against the petitioner of intoxicating the victim and establishing physical relationship. Further from perusal of F.I.R, it transpires that petitioner himself has admitted his guilt and thereafter assurance was given by the petitioner that he will solemnize marriage with the victim and further allegations are there of demanding Rs. 20 lakh by the petitioner for solemnizing marriage. In para 7 of the case diary the friend of the victim has supported the case of prosecution and in para 25 of the case diary there are medial examination report of the victim. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Dt.22.07.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-