( 2026:JHHC:12540 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 7136 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7136 of 2025 Anuj Kumar Singh @ Anuj Kr. Singh, aged about 26 years, S/o Triveni Pd. Singh, resident of Village- Sakardiha, P.O. Mirzaganj, P.S. Jamua, District- Giridih … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. ----- 03/29.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.149/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 75, 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as the petitioner has also filed case against the informant’s side. He further submits that the present FIR is counter blast of earlier case filed by the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that serious allegations are there of teasing the daughter of the informant, who is aged about 17 years. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the victim girl is aged about 17 years and the allegations are made that the petitioner along with others used to call her on mobile and always instigated to establish ( 2026:JHHC:12540 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 7136 of 2025 relationship. It has also been alleged that whenever the victim was going to the school, the petitioner used to tease her in the way. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 29th April, 2026 Ajay/