( 2026:JHHC:17275 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9343 of 2025 ------ Aabad Ansari, aged about 45 years, son of Ishaq Ansari, resident of village-Oyna, P.O. and P.S.-Pithoria, District-Ranchi. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Rajeev Kr. Sinha, Advocate ------ Order No.08 Dated- 15-06-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No.227 of 2023 arising out of Pithoria P.S. Case No.176 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was twice rejected vide order dated 18.08.2023 in B.A. No.3429 of 2023 and order dated 15.03.2024 in B.A. No.244 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, the petitioner has been in custody and the trial has advanced and all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner and as the prosecution witnesses examined so far have supported the case of the prosecution, 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 as well as the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected twice on merit as also the chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 15/06/2026 Abhiraj/