2026:JHHC:14619 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2849 of 2026 Afsar Alam @ Chotu @ Langra, son of Murtza Ali … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, APP For the Informant : Mr. Bhaswat Prakash, Advocate --- 04/13.05.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2025 in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No. 114 of 2025 registered under Sections 109, 118(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 27 of Arms Act, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that two assailants have been named in the First Information Report namely, Sanjay Machhua and Sonu Khan and it is alleged in the First Information Report itself that there is land dispute. He submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and on the basis of confessional statement of Sanjay Machhua who stated that the pistol used for the alleged offence was supplied by the petitioner, the petitioner has been made an accused in this case. He submits that no incriminating article has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner, rather the pistol has been recovered from jungle at the instance of the another co-accused namely, Raman Pratap Bagati. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the charge has already been framed on 13.04.2026. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party-informant, while opposing the prayer for bail, has submitted that confessional statement of the petitioner has also been recorded wherein he has confessed that the petitioner was the supplier of arm which was used for commission 2026:JHHC:14619 2 of the alleged offence. The learned counsel has submitted that as recorded in the case-diary itself, there are numerous criminal antecedents of the petitioner which are related to serious offences. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has also opposed the prayer for bail. 7. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that amongst the various cases which have come in the case-diary, in a few of them, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail and in a few cases, the petitioner has been acquitted / not sent up for trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that charge has been framed on 13.04.2026, but no witness has been examined. 8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the aforesaid material which has come during investigation and that the petitioner has numerous criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 9. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:13.05.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:14.05.2026