( 2026:JHHC:19569 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6159 of 2026 ------ Saddam Ansari @ Md. Saddam, aged about 20 years, son of Muslim Ansari @ Md. Muslim, resident of village –Shahpur, P.O. –Shahpur, P.S. –Chainpur, District –Palamau, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 03.07.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 82 of 2026 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.204 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 266 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(1), 303(2), 103(1), 351, 3(5) & 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. The learned counsel 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 Hassan Ali. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is no direct allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner opened fire upon Hassan Ali but it is stated by the eye-witness to the occurrence, who is also a victim – namely Vinay Agrawal that the petitioner is one of the persons, who was involved in abduction and killing of Hassan Ali as well as abduction of Vinay Agrawal and assaulting him. It is then submitted that charge has already been framed but no witness has been examined so far. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner of committing murder of Hassan Ali after abducting him and Vinay Agrawal and the three criminal antecedent of the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the 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 the evidence if released on bail as well as his criminal antecedent, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 03.07.2026 Sonu/