[2026:JHHC:17941] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5274 of 2026 ------ Rijwan Ali @ Rijwan Khan Ali @ Rijwan Khon @ Rijwan Khan, aged about 24 years, son of Kurban Ali @ Qurban Ali @ Quraban Khan, Resident of Kocha Pakar Toli, Barda, P.O. & P.S.- Tapkara, District- Khunti, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-19-06-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Tapkara P.S. Case No.08 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No.39 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 317(5), 325, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f), 11(1)(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and Section 12(1) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition Slaughter Act, 2005. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2026 passed in B.A. No.237 of 2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, charge has been frame against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.10.2025 as mentioned in para-1 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 the mere fact that the charge has been framed against the petitioner is an aggravating factor and the same is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It is next submitted that since the petitioner is also involved in five other cases, 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 as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, as also the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that mere framing of charge is not a sufficient ground to admit the above named petitioner to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 19.06.2026 Saroj/