2026:JHHC:4804 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11034 of 2025 Pandu Munda @ Muchirai Purti @ Muchirai Purty, aged about 27 years, son of Late Lebra Munda @ Soma Purti, resident of Village Murhu, P.O. Saiko and P.S. Saiko, District Khunti … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, Advocate --- 05/18th February 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 354(A)/2013 arising out of Murhu P.S. Case No. 37 of 2010 for the offence registered under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal code, now said to have been pending in the court of learned D.A.S.J.-I, Khunti. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that altogether eight persons were accused in the case and the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and only one person, namely, Ruta Munda had seen only part of the occurrence. He submits that the co-accused persons have been acquitted, but the order of acquittal has not been filed in this case. He has also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim was abducted, assaulted and killed. He submits that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds from the case diary that the witnesses has supported the prosecution case to the extent that there was altercation and the victim was taken away by the accused persons including the petitioner. The fact remains that the case is of the year 2010 and the petitioner was declared absconder and 2026:JHHC:4804 2 ultimately it appears as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the other co-accused have been acquitted. The acquittal of the other co-accused in a separate trail has no bearing in this case. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner and that the petitioner has been an absconder, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.02.2026 Uploaded On: 18.02.2026 Mukul/-