2026:JHHC:17038 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4321 of 2026 ----- Nitesh Kumar, S/o Shambhu Tiwari, resident of S.D.O. Road, Hajipur, P.O. and P.S. Nagar, District Baisali (Bihar) .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahil, Advocate : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Srivastava, Advocate : Mr. Siddhant Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, AddI. P.P. …...... 02/12.06.2026: This bail application has been filed under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 wherein, prayer has been made for grant of bail as he is in custody for allegedly committing offence punishable under Section 309 (4) B.N.S. and Section 27 of Arms Act, and charge has been framed under Sections 111(2), 111(3), 111(4), 111 (6), 111(7), 310 (2), 310 (4), 310(5), 310(6), 324 (2), 324 (5), 317 (3) read with Section 190 of B.N.S. and Section 25 (1-B) a/35, 25 (6)/35, 25(7)/35, 26/35 and 27/35 of the Arms Act. 2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned order. 3. There is allegation against this petitioner is that on 23.06.2025, four armed persons including this petitioner entered Aastha Jewellers, Chas, threatened the shop owner and his employee with firearms, and allegedly looted Rs.60,000 in cash along with gold and silver jewellery worth about Rs.1.5 crore. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that he was not named in the FIR and has been implicated only on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused. He also submits that except for the alleged confession of the co-accused, there is no independent evidence against him. The alleged recovery of jewellery having tags of Aastha Jewellers cannot conclusively establish that the ornaments belonged to the informant's shop. He also submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and co-accused persons have already been granted bail by coordinate Bench by this Court vide Order dated 18.12.2025 in B.A No. 11707 of 2025, Order dated 24.03.2026 in B.A. No. 1226 of 2026 and Order dated 25.02.2026 in B.A. No. 458 of 2026. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. 6. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, especially the impugned order, I find that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his implication appears to be based primarily on the confessional statement of a co-accused. The prosecution witnesses examined till date have not made any specific allegation against the petitioner nor they have identified them in Court. Only material is that the stolen articles have been recovered from his possession. At best on there material, the case against him can be of possessing stolen property or property which is the subject matter of dacoity. 7. Considering the aforesaid fact and the fact that similarly situated co- accused persons have been granted bail, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bokaro in connection with S.T. Case No.320 of 2025 (Chas P.S. Case No.99 of 2025) subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be a close relative of the petitioner, having sufficient landed property in his/her own name within the State of Jharkhand. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 12th June, 2026 R.S. Uploaded on 15/06/2026