( 2025:JHHC:15690 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4179 of 2025 ------ Pradeep Yadav @ Pradeep Kumar, aged about 22 years, s/o Pritam Yadav, r/o Village-Sihodih, P.O.-Sirsiya, P.S.-Giridih (M), Dist.-Giridih … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kr. No.1, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 16.06.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No.111 of 2024 (S.T. No. 422 of 2024) registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/342/324/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the informant files the counter affidavit. Keep the same in the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed murder of Chotu Yadav by stabbing him, multiple times. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and co-accused-Chand Kumar Das and Rama Das have been admitted to bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be also admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation against the petitioner stands on different footing from the allegation made against the co-accused persons; who have been admitted to bail, as there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner Pradeep Yadav and Rahul Yadav of repeatedly stabbing the victim resulting in his death. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant that seven witnesses out of fifteen witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant that the petitioner is also involved in another murder case and altogether he is involved in two other cases apart from this case, therefore, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, his criminal antecedent as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/