(2026:JHHC:15228) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4117 of 2026 Jayant Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 35 years, son of Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Shivam Apartment, Raghunathpur Road, Jayangra, Post Bagnihati, Police Station Bagnihati, District – North – 24 Pargana, West Bengal at present residing at Babu Ram Toli, Bazar Road, Post Bundu, Police Station Bundu, District - Ranchi. … … …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, 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 vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in B.A. No. 9961 of 2025. The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of bail in connection with Telco P.S. Case No. 77 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1108 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under section 392 the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground of the petitioner for grant of regular bail is that in the meanwhile, four witnesses have been examined who have supported the case of the prosecution but there is contradiction in their testimony. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been in custody since 02.08.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 12 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 keeping in view the overwhelming evidence that has already been come on record against the petitioner during trial, 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 as well as the evidence that has already come against the petitioner during trial of the case, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit 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