[2026:JHHC:14510] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11510 of 2025 Ritesh Yadav @ Sundar Yadav, aged about 22 years, Son of Indra Pal Yadav, resident of- Chandpur, P.S. + P.O.- Kunda, District- Pratapgarh, State- Uttar Pradesh. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Akash Deep , Adv. For the State : Mr. V.K.Vashistha, Spl. PP 07 / 12.05.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with C.I.D P.S. Case No. 01/2024 instituted under Section 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner who was an inmate of Dhanbad Mandal Kara (jail) shot dead another inmate of the said jail namely Aman Singh. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that two witnesses have been examined and they have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 15.02.2024, as mentioned in para 1 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. It is next submitted that the co- accused with similar allegations has already been admitted to bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed in B.A. No. 9311 of 2024, hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation against the co-accused, who has been admitted on bail, is of involvement in conspiracy of the murder only but there is direct allegation against the petitioner of shooting dead Aman Singh and in view of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and overwhelming evidence against the petitioner that has come on record during the trial through the witnesses examined in this case, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his tampering with 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 released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 12.05.2026 Smita/-