[2026:JHHC:16734] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3275 of 2026 ------ Prince Kumar Singh @ Chiku, aged about 25 years, S/O- Manoj Singh, R/O- Village- Upri Kala, P.O. Japla & P.S.- Hussainabad, District- Palamau. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate Ms. Komal S. Narayan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.04 Dated-10-06-2026 I.A. No.7173 of 2026 Heard the parties. Leaned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for release of the cash security of Rs.50,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner for provisional bail which granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2026 passed in this Bail Application. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the order-sheet dated 28.04.2026 and submits that the petitioner has already surrendered before the learned trial court in the light of the said order dated 20.04.2026, hence, the cash security of Rs.50,000/- be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nagar Untari, Garhwa is directed to pass appropriate order for releasing the cash security of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner in favour of the petitioner. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) B.A. No.3275 of 2026 This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2026 passed in B.A. No. 11708 of 2025. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 410 of 2025 arising out of Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 137 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 311 of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground of the petitioner is that there was marriage ceremony of the sister of the petitioner but in the meanwhile, vide order dated 20.04.2026 passed by this Court, since the petitioner was permitted to attend the marriage ceremony by way of provisional bail so, that ground is also no more existing. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for some more time, hence, the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that merely because the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner because earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was already rejected on merit. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and that the regular bail of the petitioner has earlier been rejected on merit as well as the mere ground that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground for the petitioner to be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above named petitioner is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in B.A. No. 11708 of 2025 at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 10.06.2026 Saroj/