[2025:JHHC:13515] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3627 of 2025 ------ Mandeep Yadav, aged about 32 years, son of Ramadhar Yadav, Resident of Village Sigsigakhurd, P.O. Barwadih, P.S. Chiniya, District- Garhwa, State- Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... …. Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Advocate Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P For the Informant : Ms. Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 05-05-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Chiniya P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 registered under Section 126 (2), 118 (2), 109 and 61 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner files a supplementary affidavit. Let the same be kept in the record. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, attempted to murder Yogendra Prasad. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and admittedly the petitioner was in jail custody in connection with some other case on the date of occurrence, hence, the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence is ruled out at the time of occurrence. It is also submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2025 passed in B.A. No.3394 of 2025. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and that he will not annoy or disturb the informant and other witnesses of the case during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.03.2025 as is evident from para-22 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail. Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.-1st Class, Garhwa in connection with Chiniya P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case, furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant and other witnesses of the case during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/