IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 393 of 2025 Veena Kumari, aged about 24 years, son of Late Gaju Singh, Resident of Village Bingada, P.O and P.S. Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand --- --- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party With B.A No. 434 of 2025 Akhatar Ansari, aged about 30 years, son of Idrish Ansari, Resident of Village Jobang, P.O and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand --- --- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioners: Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, A.P.P. [B.A. 393/2025] Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P (B.A. 434/2025] --- 03 / 21.03.2025 Both these bail applications arise out of the same police case. Accordingly, they are being disposed of by a common order. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 160 of 2024 arising out of Barkakana Rail P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023 for the offences registered under sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar. 3. On 23.09.2023 at 11.00 p.m., dacoity was committed in Jammu- Tavi Express train near Latehar-Barwadih Railway Station. During the course of investigation, petitioners were apprehended and from their house, looted articles were recovered. It is alleged that the petitioner Akhatar Ansari used to reside with the petitioner Veena Kumari in the same house from where looted articles were recovered. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that since the petitioner Veena Kumari lives with the petitioner Akhatar Ansari, she has also been made accused in this case. 5. Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned A.P.P in B.A. No. 393 of 2025 and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P in B.A. 434 of 2025 have 2. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner Akhtatar Ansari is accused in as many as six cases of similar nature. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner-Akhatar Ansari on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. 7. So far as the petitioner-Veena Kumari is concerned, I am inclined to enlarge her on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner-Veena Kumari is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in connection with S.T. Case No. 160 of 2024 arising out of Barkakana Rail P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded