[2026:JHHC:18713] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5677 of 2026 Kedar Yadav, aged about 30 years, son of Baleshwar Yadav, resident of village- Govindpur, P.O. Singhrawan, P.S. Chauparan, District Hazaribag (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Addl.. PP 02 / 25.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sessions Trial No.47 of 2026, arising out of Telaiya P.S. Case No.302 of 2025 instituted under Section 115 (2), 117 (2), 126 (2), 127 (2), 109(1), 61 (2) and 3 (5) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as his earlier bail application was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2026 passed in B.A. No. 2771 of 2026. It is next submitted that the fresh ground for admitting the petitioner to regular bail is that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for some more time. It is next 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 be admitted to regular bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected and fresh ground to allow the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail that he has spent some more time in the judicial custody, is not a sufficient ground to re-consider the prayer of petitioner for bail and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding as well as tampering with evidence, if released on bail. 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 as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail; merely because the petitioner has spent some more time in the judicial custody, cannot be a ground for the petitioner to be released on bail. Therefore, 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 again rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 07.04.2026 passed in B.A. No. 2771 of 2026. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 25.06.2026 Smita/-