2026:JHHC:16464 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3131 of 2026 Nakul Mahto @ Yadav Mahto, son of Shrinath Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma, 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 01.11.2025 in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No. 118 of 2025, registered under Sections 103(1), 118(2) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no eye- witness to the occurrence. He submits that at the place of occurrence, no blood was recovered and it is alleged that on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, the murder weapon has been recovered from the house of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.11.2025 and charge has already been framed on 15.04.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State and the informant have submitted that there are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and they have referred to paragraph 6 of the case-diary submitting that the statement of the witness reveals that he is the eye-witness and he has supported the prosecution case. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the case-diary, it appears that there is an eye-witness to the occurrence and the alleged murder weapon has been recovered on 2026:JHHC:16464 2 the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner. The case-diary further reveals that the samples have been sent for examination by SFSL, Ranchi, but the report is awaited. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, the SFSL, Ranchi is directed to ensure that the FSL report is promptly forwarded to the learned Court concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to SFSL, Ranchi for compliance. 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