( 2026:JHHC:18909 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5852 of 2026 ------ Ganga Das @ Ganga Ram Das, aged about 31 years, Son of Pashupati Das, Resident of Village –Logai, P.O.+P.S. – Tinpahar, District –Sahibganj, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 29.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No.144 of 2025 arising out of Tinpahar P.S. Case No.24 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 235 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 126, 109(1), 351(2)/(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 25(1-B)a/26/27 of the Arms Act. 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 vide order dated 09.09.2025 in B.A. No.7648 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to commit murder of his father-in-law by firing upon him and causing gunshot injuries to him. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the wife of the petitioner is the pairvikar of the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –10 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.03.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. It is then submitted that charge has been framed but no witness has been examined so far. It is next submitted that in the earlier rejection order dated 09.09.2025, passed in B.A. No. 7648 of 2025, observation was made that the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months. It is then submitted that the occurrence took place because of some misunderstanding between the parties which has been cleared. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Rajmahal, in connection with S.T. Case No.144 of 2025 arising out of Tinpahar P.S. Case No.24 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 235 of 2025 with the condition that the petitioner will co- operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 29.06.2026 Sonu/