( 2025:JHHC:22999 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7170 of 2025 ------ Rahul Kumar @ Rohit Kumar, aged about 22 years, Son of Sri Arjun Gope, Resident of Village –Singhani, P.O. & P.S. –Muffasil, District –Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 08.08.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No.42 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 803 of 2025, S.T. No. 191 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109(1) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 10.06.2025 in B.A. No. 3910 of 2025 which was supported by the affidavit of Ashok Yadav who was the Pairvikar of the petitioner, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner was involved in three other cases apart from this case and details of the case number and the offences involved in each of the such case was mentioned in para-12 of the said B.A. No. 3910 of 2025. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that after submission of charge sheet which was made prior to rejection of the earlier bail application of the petitioner, there is no chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner is involved in three other cases apart from this case including two cases of attempt to murder of different persons, extortion and indulging in vandalism but he is not an infamous criminal of the locality as was submitted by the learned counsel for the state at the time of hearing of the earlier bail application. It is next submitted that out of the three cases in two of the cases police after investigation of the case has submitted final report showing that there is lack of evidence against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that as such there is no fresh ground for filing this bail application. It is next submitted that the final form of two of the cases was submitted prior to rejection of the earlier bail application of the petitioner on 10.06.2025. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is an infamous criminal nobody is daring to be a witness against him, hence in some of the cases, police could not collect evidence against the petitioner because of the reluctance of the witnesses to make any statement incriminating him in any case, so final form has been submitted because of lack of evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that there being no fresh ground, the prayer for bail of the petitioner be rejected. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court do not find any fresh ground to review the earlier order dated 10.06.2025, passed by this Court in B.A. No. 3910 of 2025. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 10.06.2025, in B.A. No. 3910 of 2025. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-