( 2026:JHHC:18374 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3319 of 2026 ------ Chutu Thakur @ Gangadhar Thakur @ Ganga Thakur @ Chhtu Thakur, aged about 71 years, s/o late Chintamani Thakur, r/o Hariharpur, P.O. & P.S.-Hariharpur, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ Order No.03 Dated- 23.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Hariharpur P.S. Case No.63 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/238/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has committed the murder of Kapil Kumar Rai- the elder brother of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and only because from the house of the petitioner the dead body of the deceased has been recovered, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. It is then submitted that the petitioner had gone to Bihar one week prior to the occurrence and due to old enmity, the petitioner has been implicated in this case even though the petitioner is an old man of 71 years of age. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.28 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.10.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 30 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused person has already been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.03.2026 in B.A. No.2591 of 2026. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner led to recovery of weapon of offence which is sword which was used for commission of the murder of the deceased by the petitioner; which is also corroborated from the fact that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the locked house of the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 23.06.2026 Gunjan-