[2026:JHHC:17939] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4567 of 2026 ------ Ranvir Bhuiyan @ Ranbir Bhuiyan @ Ranbir Bhuiya, aged about 25 years, s/o Govind Bhuiyan, r/o Village- Solaiya, P.O. & P.S.- Manika, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-19-06-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Satbarwa P.S. Case No.119 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.74 of 2025) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 190, 191, 126, 127, 115, 117, 118, 109(1) of the B.N.S., 2023. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was once dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 passed in B.A. No. 3126 of 2025 and subsequently, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was twice rejected by this Court vide orders dated 10.07.2025 passed in B.A. No. 5713 of 2025 and 14.11.2025 passed in B.A. No. 10381 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time and the co-accused has been granted bail. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.10.2024 as mentioned in para-17 of the instant bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view that the allegation against the co-accused persons who have been granted bail, stands on different footings than the petitioner and the mere fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer of bail of the petitioner which has already been rejected on merit twice and further as 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 released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of Arjun Mehta as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail; this Court is of the considered view that the mere fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to review the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner which have already been rejected twice on merits and once withdrawn. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to admit the above named petitioner to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 19.06.2026 Saroj/