2026:JHHC:5092 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11854 of 2025 ------ Dharnidas @ Prashanto, S/o Punnu Chandra Das, R/o Manjhi Tola, Nirmal Nagar, Adityapur, PO & PS Adityapur, Dist.-Seraikela Kharsawan .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, APP ------ Order No.03 / Dated : 19.02.2026. Heard both the sides. This bail application has been filed on behalf of Dharnidas @ Prashanto who is in custody since 08.07.2025 in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 126(2), 115, 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, is pressed into motion. The deceased left his home as per FIR on 08.07.2025 at 12:30 in the day time. By the evening, he did not return then the informant who happens to be brother of the deceased called his friend who informed that they were returning. However, at 10:30 at night he received a call from Amit Sharma that the deceased was being assaulted by some persons. It was stated that this petitioner and two others were assaulting his brother. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that sole eye witness to the incident as per the FIR was Amit Sharma and he has only named Suraj Rai. Only material against this petitioner is the confessional statement of the accused leading to recovery of weapon of offence said to be hockey stick. The said disclosure statement is riddled with contradiction as it is a third disclosure statement before that two confessional statements had been recorded from the deceased, but there was no whisper of weapon of offence. In the confessional statement it has been stated that the hockey stick was broken and disposed of, in a pond and half was thrown in the bush. However, unbroken hockey stick has been recovered. Learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by counsel on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and 2026:JHHC:5092 Amit Sharma was direct eye witness to the occurrence who named this Petitioner as the assailant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ Uploaded 20.02.2026