2026:JHHC:27425 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4603 of 2026 ------ Amir Ansari @ Rahat Ansari, aged about 30 years, son of Meharun Nesha, resident of 52, Ishlam Nagar, Kapali, P.O. Kapali, P.S. Kapali, District Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. (through video conferencing) For the Informant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate ------ 02/11.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Olidih P.S. Case No. 131 of 2026, registered for the offence under Section 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 what has been alleged in the FIR, that was consensual in nature and in spite of that the FIR has been lodged. He submits that false allegations are made against the petitioner of sexually exploiting the victim. He also submits that there are contradiction of statement under Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS of the victim. He further submits that prior to lodging of the present FIR, one complaint case was filed which was withdrawn earlier and she has refused to go for medical examination. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State appearing through video conferencing and learned counsel appearing for the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that serious allegations are made against the petitioner and even the informant was forced to eat cow beef and she was converted into Islam. Learned counsel for the informant submits that so far 2026:JHHC:27425 the statement made under Section 183 of the BNSS is concerned, that is made before the learned court and in view of that the statement can be relied. On these grounds, they submit that prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR, there is allegation against the petitioner of establishing the relationship and in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS which has been recorded before the learned court, she has stated that her religion has been converted into Islam and she has been provided new name ‘Muskan’ and the said statement is made before the learned court and four times abortion have been done of the informant at the instance of the petitioner. It has been pointed out in course of the argument by the learned counsel for the informant that she has not gone for the medical examination as she was having infection in the uterus due to the act of the petitioner. There are serious allegations against the petitioner, 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 11.09.2026 Anit Uploaded 15.09.2026