( 2026:JHHC:16922 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2447 of 2026 ------ Dasay Purti @ Gede, aged about 25 years, S/o Late Budhram Purti, R/o Village –Etray, P.O. and P.S. Murhu, District – Khunti (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Saman Ahmad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.06 Dated- 11.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.50 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 101 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 386 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1- B)a/25(6)/26/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a member of the Extremist Organization PLFI and he was apprehended while he was along with the co-accused persons, who came to commit crime and from the petitioner police recovered one loaded country made pistol, walkie talkie and the receipt book of P.L.F.I. Organization. The petitioner is also involved in six other cases. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.09.2023, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the considering the period of custody under gone by the petitioner, the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner and his criminal antecedent as well as the P.W.1 who has been examined during the trial has supported the case of the prosecution, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 11.06.2026 Sonu/