[2026:JHHC:19375] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6134 of 2026 Golu Saw @ Golu Kumar, aged about 21 years, S/O-Sri Tunki Saw, Resident of village- Champadih, P.O. & P.S- Padma, O.P.- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh , Adv. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl. PP 02 / 02.07.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No.- 116/2025 (S.T.No.- 369/2025) instituted in respect of the offences punishable under Section 103(1), 238(a), 3(5), of BNS, 2023 & 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35 of Arms Act. 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 10.12.2025 passed in B.A. No. 9499 of 2025. It is next submitted that the fresh ground for admitting the petitioner on regular bail is that in the meanwhile, seven witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution except of PW3. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 15.04.2025, 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 be admitted to regular bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the fact witnesses who have been examined in this case, after rejection of the prayer for bail of the petitioner, have supported the case of the prosecution except PW3, is an aggravating factor hence the same cannot be reason for granting the bail to the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding as well as tampering with evidence, if released on bail in view of the overwhelming evidence that has come in record through the witnesses examined by the prosecution; establishing his involvement in commission of murder of Praveen Kumar. 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, as also the evidence that has come in record through the witnesses examined so far, 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 02.07.2026 Smita/-