[ 2026:JHHC:29300] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5352 of 2026 Aftab Alam S/o Asgar Ali, aged about 35 years, Residents of H.No-158, Ghosipurwa, Shahpur, Geeta Vatika, Gorakhpur, P.O. &P.S. Shahpur Ghosipurwa, District-Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl.PP 02 / 24.09.2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with B.S.City Mahila P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026 registered under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons treated the informant with cruelty. There is further allegation against the petitioner that when the victim was a minor girl of 14 years of age, the petitioner enticed her and established physical relationship with her and after the informant joined her services in C.I.S.F., the petitioner forcibly made her to marry him by threatening to make her obscene photographs viral and also threatened that the same will ultimately result in the informant losing her job and ruining her life. The petitioner made the informant to take loan but purchased property in his own name and by the forced physical relationship made by the petitioner, the informant gave birth to a daughter. The petitioner used to have forcibly physical relation with the informant after assaulting her and was not allowing the informant to go out of the house. The petitioner used to harass the informant with a view to coerce her to bring money from her parental house and put pressure upon the informant to change her religion. The petitioner also used to assault their daughter. The informant was not inclined to change her religion and hence, she decided to stay separate. The petitioner criminally intimated the informant by threatening her to throw acid upon her face and also threatened to kidnap their daughter and commit rape upon her and to sell her to some Seikh. The wilful conduct of the petitioner was of such a nature as was likely to drive the informant to commit suicide. The petitioner also claimed that he has raped several Hindu girls and made them change their religion and has sold them and he is having illicit relationship with several Hindu girls including a girl namely Chitra; with whom the petitioner stayed in a hotel; by claiming to Chitra that the petitioner is a bachelor. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are ornamental in nature. It is next submitted that earlier a compromise took place between the parties and they have entered into a compromise agreement also dated 19.11.2024. It is next submitted that petitioner is a serving member of Indian Army and there is no possibility of the petitioner absconding hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of establishing physical relationship with the victim when she was only 14 years old and it is not even a case of the petitioner that this is the second FIR in respect of which, Obra P.S. case no. 152 of 2024 was earlier registered. It is next submitted that the present case is different and separate case and there are serious allegations against the petitioner in respect of some of the offences, which not been mentioned in the FIR at the time of registration of the same but keeping in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner; which are besides the offences in respect of which, FIR has been registered, the custodial integration of the petitioner is required to find out the details of the case during investigation of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 24.09.2026 Smita/-