[2026:JHHC:14724 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4040 of 2026 Laldeo Munda @ Laldev Munda, S/o- Late Soma Munda, aged about- 56 years Both R/o-village- Pipi Bamda, P.O. Kurumgarh, P.S.- Chainpur Dist.- Gumla, Jharkhand, PIN-835206 … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kr. Upadhyay, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. PP 02 / 13.05.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. case no. 337 of 2025 arising out of Angara P.S. case no. 26 of 1998 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Suraj Mal Kachhap. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the co-accused Shahdeo Munda, who faced the trial, has been acquitted by the judgment of the appellate court. It is next submitted that the petitioner was the boy-friend of the PW3 who is the daughter of the deceased, hence, he has been implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 23.01.2025, as mentioned in para 1 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that so far as three witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the case of prosecution and PW3 is the eye witness to the occurrence, has categorically stated about the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the said offence and the allegation against the co-accused who was acquitted after trial; is on different footing than that of the petitioner, as the said co-accused is not named in the FIR; whereas the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. 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 the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, 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. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 13.05.2026 Smita/-