[2026:JHHC:13211] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. no. 2638 of 2026 Rajeshwar Mehta @ Rajeshwar Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/o Sundar Mahto, resident of lower Pandu, P.S. + P.O.- Pandu, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai , Adv. Mr. Deepak Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu , Addl. PP 03 / 04.05.2026 Heard the parties. . The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Pandu P. S. case no. 36 of 2024 (G.R. No. 1323 of 2024, S.T. no. 410 of 2024) instituted for the offences punishable under Section 302, 504, 506, 34 of IPC. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as his earlier bail application was rejected vide order dated 21.01.2025 passed in B.A. No. 8856 of 2024 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is next submitted that the fresh ground for admitting the petitioner on regular bail is that in the meanwhile, three witnesses have been examined and PW1- the informant has categorically stated in para 10 of her cross-examination that she has not seen the occurrence herself and her Gotni (sister-in-law) Prabha Devi, narrated the occurrence to her. It is next submitted that PW3- Prabha Devi has not stated anything to implicate the petitioner in this case and PW2 has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 22 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 29.06.2024, as mentioned in para 23 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the trial of the case and undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. Considering submissions of learned counsels and the facts as stated above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the court below is directed to release the petitioner 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, VIII, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Pandu P. S. case no. 36 of 2024 (G.R. No. 1323 of 2024, S.T. no. 410 of 2024) with the condition that the petitioner will not annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish mobile phone number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change the mobile phone number during the trial of the case. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 04.05.2026 Smita/-