( 2026:JHHC:17076 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5189 of 2026 ------ Aman Shrivastav @ Aman Shrivastava, aged about 36 years, son of late Sushil Srivastava, resident of Village & P.O.- Kubba, P.S.-Hunterganj, Dist.-Chatra … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate : Ms. Sumitra Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 12.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. No. 84 of 2024 arising out of Katkamdag P.S. Case No.22 of 2021 (G.R. No. 59 of 2024) registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected and the fresh ground is that after rejection of the earlier bail application, P.W.4 to P.W.13 have been examined. P.Ws.4 to 7 and P.W.10 and 11 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and even though the prosecution put leading questions to them still they did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.8 is a part I.O. of the case and P.W.9 is the I.O. of the case and even the P.W.s 8 and 9 have not identified the petitioner during their examination-in-chief. P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.3 who stated to be the eyewitness of the case has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and none of the witnesses examined has identified the petitioner in Court. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.10.2023, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 11 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in connection with S.T. No. 84 of 2024 arising out of Katkamdag P.S. Case No.22 of 2021 (G.R. No. 59 of 2024) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 12.06.2026 Gunjan-