[2026:JHHC:16724 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5051 of 2026 ------ Rajesh Paswan, aged about 36 years, son of Late Sukhdev Paswan, resident of Village- Kandi Nawada, P.O. & P.S.-Banouta, District- Gaya, Bihar. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-10-06-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 109 of 2025 arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No. 157 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.750 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. This is the second journey of the petitioner for prayer for regular bail, earlier regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 in B.A. No. 10030 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that the co-accused has been admitted to bail and charge has been framed on 05.05.2026. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or witnesses of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.08.2025 as mentioned in para-14 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl.P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation against the co-accused person who has been admitted to bail stands on different foot from this petitioner and merely the fact that charge has been framed in this case is at best an aggravating factor, but the same cannot be a ground for release of the petitioner on bail as there is every chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and as his prayer for regular bail has already been rejected on merit and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this court is of the considered view that merely because charge has been framed in the meanwhile; is not a sufficient ground to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 20.11.2025. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 10/06/2026 Amar/