(2026:JHHC:15108) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4104 of 2026 Dharni Das @ Prashanto @ Dharnidhar, aged about 29 years, son of Punnu Chandra Das, resident of Majhi Tola, Nirmal Nagar, Adityapur, PO & PS – Adityapur, District – Seraikella Kharsawan. … … …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P. ------ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ Order No:- 02, Dated:- 15th May, 2026 Heard the parties. This is the second journey of the petitioner for grant of regular bail. Earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was rejected on 19.02.2026 passed in B.A. No. 11854 of 2025. The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 45 of 2026, arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 115, 109, 3(5) of the B.N.S. along with Section 103 of the B.N.S. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground of the petitioner for grant of regular bail is that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time and co-accused person has already been granted bail and charge has been framed against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been in custody since 10.07.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 25 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the mere fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time, is not a ground for reconsidering the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail which has already been rejected on merit and also the fact that the charge has been framed against the petitioner is an aggravating factor. Further it is submitted that the allegation against the co-accused person who has been granted bail, stands on different footing than that of the petitioner of this case. It is also submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and as his prayer for bail has already been rejected on merit, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the mere ground that he has remained in custody for some more time, in view of the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated – 15.05.2026 Aditi