[2026:JHHC:1174] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. no. 43 of 2026 Seraj Ansari, aged about 60 years, son of Late Ajmuddin Ansari, resident Melani, P.O Silagain, P.S. Chanho, District- Ranchi. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar ,Adv. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy , Addl. PP 02 / 16.01.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bhandra P.S. Case No.72 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer of regular bail and the earlier application of the regular bail was earlier rejected vide order dated 17.06.2025 in B.A. No. 4691 of 2025. It is next submitted that the only fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, the petitioner has been in jail custody for some more months i.e. for about six months and in one out of three other cases, in which the petitioner is also involved, the petitioner has been granted bail. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. 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 hence, the petitioner may be admitted on regular bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing theft of 35 pole conductor and 29 pole of ACSR Rabbit Conductor of about 4.5km in length. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a threat to smooth supply of electricity in the locality, as he has been habitually involved in committing theft of articles of electricity supply of JBVNL. It is further submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on 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 not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is again rejected for the same reasons as was in the earlier order dated 17.06.2025 in B.A. No. 4691 of 2025. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 16.01.2026 Smita/-