[ 2026:JHHC:17449] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5284 of 2026 Vijay Hembrom, Aged about 22 years, Son of Budin Hembrom, Resident of: Village Budhapokhar, Post Office-Maheshpur, Police Station-Maheshpur, District-Pakur, (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey , Adv. For the State : Mr. V.S.Sahay , Addl.. PP 02 / 15.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Maheshpur petitioner in P.S. Case No. 148/2025 corresponding G.R. Case No. 898 of (S.T. No. 214/2025) instituted under Section 103 (1) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Lalita Marandi and caused disappearance of the evidence of murder by throwing the dead body. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only because the petitioner was having love affairs with the deceased and the deceased was in deep love with the petitioner and she lived in his house for about 3 years and thereafter, the family members of the decease took the victim back but still the deceased victim was in contact with the petitioner and on earlier occasion, the petitioner tonsured the head of the victim. It is next submitted that the petitioner has confessed his guilt that he has committed the murder of the deceased as the deceased was having love affair with one Kartik Rai. It is next submitted that except suspicion, there is no material in the record, to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 06.09.2025 , as mentioned in para 1 of this bail application. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of Lalita Marandi and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing murder as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 15.06.2026 Smita/-