( 2025:JHHC:37488 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10001 of 2025 ------ Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Kr. Sao, aged about 25 years, son of Rajesh Sao @ Rajesh Saw, resident of New Madhukam, Mahua Toli, P.O. & P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 12.12.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Burmu P.S. Case No.83 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 115(2)/126(2)/324(4)/308(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. The learned 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 was rejected vide order dated 09.06.2025 in B.A. No. 3835 of 2025. It is then submitted that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, the petitioner remained in custody for four more months. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner being the member of a terrorist organization, was demanding extortion from the informant and fired upon the informant and damaged an auto rickshaw for non-payment of the extortion amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the co-accused-Anil Kumar Mahto @ Anil Kumar Mahto and Sunil Munda @ Bharat Jee has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 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 the case of the co-accused-Anil Kumar Mahto @ Anil Kumar Mahto and Sunil Munda @ Bharat Jee stand in a different footing as that of the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that after investigation, the allegation against the petitioner were found to be true. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail in view of the fact that the petitioner is a member of terrorist organization. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and 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 for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 09.06.2025 in B.A. No. 3835 of 2025. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 12.12.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-