2026:JHHC:25932 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 3498 of 2026 ---- Akram Hasan @ Ekram Hassan @ Akram Hassan, aged about 20 years, son of Abdul Quddus @ Abdul Qudush resident of Village Kasiyadih, PS and PO Kisko, District Lohardaga .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- A.P.P. For the Informant :- Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate ---- 2/28.08.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kisko P.S. Case No.12 of 2026, for offence registered under section 78(2), 75(2), 64(1), 69, 351(2), 89, 352 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 6,8 and 12 of POCSO Act pending in court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- Cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lohardaga. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he next submits that what has happened that was consensual in nature. He also submits 2026:JHHC:25932 2 that even the petitioner is younger to the informant. He next submits that the allegations of establishing relationship is of the year 2022 and the FIR has been lodged in the year 2026. He further submits that the petitioner is a student. He submits that the informant has also stated before the doctor that the said incidence has occurred 2 years 11 months back and in view of that he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the informant jointly oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail and submit that the allegation of establishing relationship on false pretext of marriage is there and even at one point of time, she has become pregnant and this petitioner has provided the pills for abortion and on these grounds they submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR, there is allegation against the petitioner of forcibly entering into the house and in the first time forcibly establishing relationship and when the informant was in trauma, this petitioner has assured her that he will solemanize marriage. 6. Prima-facie, it appears that the promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to have sexual favour and thereafter has refused to marry. In paragraph no.101 of the case diary, it has come that the police has seized the Chat of conversation and private photographs in the Pen-drive which has 2026:JHHC:25932 3 been taken by the petitioner and in paragraph no.39 of the case diary, it has further come that the petitioner has provided medicine for abortion, and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. 7. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected, and consequently, this anticipatory bail being A.B.A. No.3498 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 28.08.2026 SI/