( 2026:JHHC:7115 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1851 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Sao, aged about 29 years son of Late Ramgati Saw, Resident of Village- Manachotag, p.O.+P.S. and District-Latehar, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, APP --- 02/16.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2025 in connection with Chandwa P.S. Cas No. 161/2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 915 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 111(1), 111(4), 308(1), 308(5), 308(6), 109, 326(9), 61 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has come in the confessional statement and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the co-accused Sagar Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Ganjhu have been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 17.02.2026 in B.A. No. 10459 of 2025 and B.A. No. 10763 of 2025 respectively and the co-accused Sonu Pawan has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.02.2026 in B.A. No. 459 of 2026, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail. The petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that co-accused Sagar Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Ganjhu have also criminal antecedents, but since there is no recovery from their possession, they have been enlarged on bail. He submits that the case of the petitioner is similar to the aforesaid co-accused persons. ( 2026:JHHC:7115 ) 2 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that it appears from the impugned order itself that the CDR of the mobile number of the petitioner reflects that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence and the petitioner also has three more criminal cases of similar nature. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and that during investigation, through the CDR, the mobile number of the petitioner was said to be found at the place of occurrence and the petitioner has three more criminal antecedents, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 16.03.2026 Uploaded on: 17.03.2026 Binit/