2026:JHHC:4831 --1-- A.B.A. No. 6438 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6438 of 2025 ---- Abhishek Sudele, aged about 27 years, S/o Jagdish Prasad Sudele, R/o Civil Lines, Matatila Road, PO – Talbehat, PS – Talbehat, Uttar Pradesh .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Advocate For the Informant :- Mr. Tushar Agrawal, Advocate :- Ms. Sonal Pandey, Advocate :- Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate ---- 03/18.02.2026 Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State through V.C. and learned counsel appearing for the Informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No.15 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 69, 78, 351(2) and 77 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Ranchi. 3. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the informant with the ulterior motive has lodged the present case against the petitioner to extort money. He further submits that the informant and the petitioner were living in Bishkek Kyrgyzstan in live-in-relation in the same flat. He then submits that they have returned to India after completion of their 2026:JHHC:4831 --2-- A.B.A. No. 6438 of 2025 study and they resided in Delhi in the same flat as a tenant and while residing there in Delhi, police verification was done for the purpose of rent by Delhi Police and he refers to Annexure-3 of the verification report of Delhi Police. He next submits that the girl is major and the allegations are there of having the physical relationship since 2018 wherein the FIR has been lodged on 16.01.2025. He also submits that even they have resided as a live- in-relationship and there is no question of establishing relationship on the false pretext of marriage arises. He next submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of live-in-relationship has been pleased to quash the FIR. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State through V.C. and learned counsel appearing for the Informant jointly opposed the prayer and submits that serious allegations are there of making viral the intimate video of the informant. They submit that the marriage of the informant was solemnized with another person and thereafter the petitioner has interfered and also send certain intimate photographs and video to other persons and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record it transpires that the petitioner and informant were pursuing their studies in a same college and friendship was 2026:JHHC:4831 --3-- A.B.A. No. 6438 of 2025 developed and pursuant to the relationship has been established. There is no doubt that certain time they have lived together in one flat and if that is the only situation the matter would have been otherwise, however, in the FIR allegations are made of making viral of the video and intimate photographs of the informant and in paragraph No.37 of the case diary the pen-drive has been produced by the informant before the police which has been seized and marked as exhibit. 6. In the aforesaid background, what has been revealed in the investigation it is evident that the petitioner’s conduct transcended the boundaries of a mere friendship. The relationship between the informant and petitioner cannot be termed as a “friendship simpliciter” wherein other assistance was extended by one friend to another. Instead, it prima facie appears that the petitioner has exploited the relationship under the guise of a video. If a person is in friendship, it does not entitle one party to exploit the other’s vulnerability or dignity. 7. Assertion to the effect that the informant is a major lady and intelligent enough to understand the significance and consequences of her action is a specious argument that cannot absolve the petitioner if the allegations levelled against him are there of taking away the dignity of a woman which further violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the investigation, it has been revealed that intimate video 2026:JHHC:4831 --4-- A.B.A. No. 6438 of 2025 has been made which has been produced in the pen-drive and marked exhibit. 9. It is trite law that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is extraordinary in nature and is said to be exercised sparingly. Thus, anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a routine manner. 10. This Court is having the opinion that this is not a case of exercising discretion under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 11. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 18.02.2026 Sangam/ A.F.R.