[ 2026:JHHC:18916] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5891 of 2026 Rooplal Hansda, aged about 42 years, S/o Sundo Hansda @ Chunda Hansda, R/o Village. Asanthar, P.O. and P.S. Jama, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Ms. Saman Ahmad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Spl. PP 02 / 29.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Dumka Town P.S. Case No. 176 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 227/2023 instituted under Section 307 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to commit murder of the informant by firing upon him from fire arm causing gunshot injury in his right thigh. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and so far, two witnesses have been examined in this case, who have supported the case of the prosecution but there is contradiction in their testimony. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 31.07.2023, as mentioned in para 1 of this bail application. 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 may be admitted to bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of attempting to commit murder of the informant by firing upon him and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail and also the chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence; 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, 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 rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 29.06.2026 Smita/-