2026:JHHC:16475 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3277 of 2026 Naseem Ahmad, S/o Karimuddin Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Vani Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, APP For the Informant : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Prakhar Kumar Vishain, Advocate --- 05/09.06.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 139 of 2026 arising out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 181 of 2025, registered under Sections 308(5), 231, 308(4), 76, 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Addl. Judl. Commissioner -VII- cum-Spl. Judge CBI (AHD scam), Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the petitioner is named in the First Information Report, but except the fact that the petitioner was accompanying the main accused Sabir Khan and other co-accused, there is no overt act alleged against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that one similarly situated co-accused namely, Anim Ansari @ Vikki Khan has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2026 passed in B.A. No. 1984 of 2026. 5. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is another case in which the present petitioner is a co-accused with Sabir Khan in Chanho P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025 which reveals that the petitioner is an associate of Sabir Khan in the matter of committing crime of extortion and other related offence and it has been alleged that the people in the locality are under 2026:JHHC:16475 2 constant threat from the entire gang of persons who are accused in the present case. 6. So far as bail of the co-accused namely, Anim Ansari @ Vikki Khan is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the antecedent report and the case-diary were not called for in the said case. 7. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer for bail and has supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant in this case. 8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of accompanying Sabir Khan in the commission of the alleged offence and the fact that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner reveals that the petitioner has been committing similar offence along with Sabir Khan and the bail application of co-accused in the present case , namely, Sabir Khan, having been rejected vide B.A No. 2423 of 2026 , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:09.06.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:10.06.2026