( 2025:JHHC:12204 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3211 of 2025 ------ Sabir Miyan, aged about 48 years, son of Khurshid Miyan, Resident of Village –Karailibar, P.O. –Jori, Police Station – Bashisthnagar, District –Chatra. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 23.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case No.141 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 140(1)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and subsequently section 103 of the B.N.S., 2023 has been added. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the murder of the son of the informant namely Vikash Kumar after abducting him. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is no explanation as to how the informant came to know that the petitioner has committed the murder of Vikash Kumar. It is then submitted that it is not the duty of the petitioner to intimate the court as to how Vikash Kumar has been murdered. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.12.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the bail application. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has abducted and committed the murder of Vikash Kumar and after finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true, police has already submitted charge sheet against him. It is next submitted that keeping in view the fact that there is direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner; there is every chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/