[2025:JHHC:15460] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4111 of 2025 ------ Manmeet Singh Gujral @ Anmol, aged about 19 years, S/o Late Amarjeet Singh, R/o- H.No.-04, Gurudwara Basti, Road No.01, P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, Jamshedpur District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 13-06-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.313 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.219 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.135 of 2025) registered under Section 103 (1) and 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that on 13.10.2024, the son of the informant Devraj Pillai became the victim of road rage and he was murdered by 8-10 unknown persons including the petitioner, who is stated to have stabbed him 2-3 times. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner was put on Test Identification Parade and one of the witnesses could not identify the petitioner and one of the witnesses Kundan Karmakar identified the petitioner as one of the accused persons who was standing at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner. It is then submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, has already been admitted to bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in B.A. No.2546 of 2025. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-24 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted in this case and no witness has been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the witness Kundan Lohar who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, has identified the petitioner as one of the persons who was the member of the mob; which was assaulting the deceased. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.10.2024. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the witness- Gautam Mahto has identified the petitioner to be a person who was assaulting the deceased and the statement of the witness Gautam Mahto is corroborated by the confessional statement of the petitioner himself and the petitioner leading to recovery of the weapon of offence i.e., the knife. Therefore, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/