(2026:JHHC:14758 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4050 of 2026 ------ Bablu Mahto @ Bablu Kumar @ Bablu Kumar Mahto, aged about 34 years, Son of Late Degnarayan Mahto, resident of Village Belmo, P.O. Poraiya, P.S. Nimiaghat, District- Giridih, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.03 Dated- 13-05-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Nimaighat P.S. Case No. 90 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 270 & 271 of the he B.N.S. and Sections 47(a), 47(f), 52 and 55 of the Jharkhand Excise Amendment Act, 2025. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, as earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merits vide order dated 05.02.2026 in B.A. No.11890 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time and charge has been framed. It is next submitted that the co- accused has been admitted to bail. It also submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or witnesses of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.09.2025 as mentioned in para-17 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Spl.P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation against the co-accused person who has been admitted to bail stands on different footing and prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected. Hence, the mere fact is that he has been in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for bail and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit, and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of considered view that merely because the petitioner has been in custody for some more time and charge has been framed is not a sufficient ground to release the petitioner on bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above- named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 13/05/2026 Amar/