( 2025:JHHC:34290 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10094 of 2025 ------ Nitesh Kumar Ray @ Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh Kumar Rai, aged about 24 years, son of Nageshwar Ray, Resident of Simarpur, P.O. Tapovan, P.S. Kunda, District –Deoghar, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Kumar Rishab Anand, Advocate : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 14.11.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.06 of 2025 corresponding to M.C.A. Case No. 1602 of 2025 and S.T. No. 146 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1), 238(c), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. 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 of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 24.04.2025 in B.A. No. 3118 of 2025. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fresh ground is that so far four witnesses have been examined during the trial and the P.W.1 in para-4 has categorically stated that she does not know how the deceased –Beauty Rana died. The P.W.2 has been declared hostile for not having supported the case of the prosecution and even though the prosecution put leading questions to him, still he did not support the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the P.W.3 has also not stated the name of the petitioner but the P.W.4, the brother of the deceased has categorically stated that he believes that the petitioner has committed the murder of his sister. It is also submitted that except suspicion there is no material in the record to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –14 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.01.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 13 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released 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 Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.06 of 2025 corresponding to M.C.A. Case No. 1602 of 2025 and S.T. No. 146 of 2025 with the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 14.11.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-