( 2026:JHHC:14422 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3990 of 2026 ------ Kishori Agarwal @ Kishori Prasad Agarwal, aged about 57 years, son of Late Punichand Agarwal @ Late Punichand Modi, resident of village –Sirsay, P.O. –Barotand, P.S. – Dhanwar, District –Giridih. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate : Ms. Sanskriti Shalini, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Shahid Yunus, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 12.05.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of bail in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 353 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1), 3(5), 191(2)(3), 190 of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with co-accused persons, committed murder of Kamlesh Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing attention of this Court towards Para Nos, 129, 136, 143, 179 of the Case Diary, in which the statements of the independent witnesses, namely, Sujit Modi, Baby Devi wife of Ram Ji Turi, Shaukat Ali and Ujjwal Kumar Aggarwal have been recorded, submits that they have categorically stated that the deceased was the aggressor party and the genesis of the occurrence is, the land dispute between the parties. It is next submitted that as per independent witnesses, it is the deceased who brought out the pistol and attempted to fire upon the petitioner but the said pistol could not fire and after that he first attacked on the petitioner with a Lathi. It is submitted that there was free fight between the parties and the petitioner had no intention to kill anyone. It is next submitted that the petitioner also sustained injury and after regaining senses, he lodged Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 74 of 2026 in respect of the self- same occurrence. It is next submitted that the petitioner had no intention to kill anybody and the allegations against the petitioner, are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.12.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of the bail application and charge-sheet has already been submitted. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused persons have already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026 in B.A. No. 3584 of 2026. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Giridih, in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 353 of 2025, with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 12.05.2026 Sonu/