[2026:JHHC:14966] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.36 of 2026 ------ Devendra Honhaga @ Lude Honhaga, aged about 46 years, Son of Tungir Honhaga, Resident of Kotsona, P.O.- Kotsona, P.S.- Chakradharpur, Dist.- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Seema Kri. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.04 Dated-14-05-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Chaibasa Muffasil P.S. Case No.143 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.66 of 2022 (S.T. Case No.247 of 2022) registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as earlier vide orders dated 02.08.2022 and 14.06.2024 passed in B.A. No.7249 of 2022 and in B.A. No.2481 of 2024 respectively, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected on merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile five witnesses have been examined and though the P.W.1 to P.W.4 have supported the case of the prosecution but they have stated that they are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and only the P.W.5 claims to be the eye-witness of the occurrence but he has stated that in the village, people switch off the light in the night, hence, there was no source of light. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the fact that the P.W.5 has supported the case of the prosecution; which has not been demolished in his cross-examination and also the fact that the P.W.1 to P.W.4 have also supported the case of the prosecution, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. 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 his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, 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 at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-14.05.2026-Animesh/