2026:JHHC:19509 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5673 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Saw @ Manoj Kumar Sao, Son of Late Ramgati Saw … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Malsi Pathak, AC to PP --- 02/3rd July 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 161/2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 915 of 2025 arising out of S.T. Case No. 275/2025for the offences registered under Sections 111(1), 111(4), 308(1), 308(5), 308(6), 109, 326(g), 61 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier vide order dated 16.03.2026 in B.A. No. 1851 of 2026 and he has renewed his bail application by filing the same on 08.06.2026. The learned counsel has submitted that several co- accused persons have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court and also by this Court. He has in particular referred to the bail order granted to one Mithun Lohra in B.A. No. 3562 of 2026 vide order dated 15.05.2026. The learned counsel has further submitted that neither there is any recovery from the possession of the petitioner nor TIP was conducted and these aspects of the matter were taken into consideration by this Court while granting bail to Mithun Lohra and that the case of the petitioner is on similar footing. 3. The learned counsel for the State is present. 2026:JHHC:19509 2 4. The FIR has also been placed and as per the allegation the petitioner belongs to Rahul Dubey Gang and Pradip Ganjhu gang and also involved in extortion and burning of certain vehicles. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the order dated 16.03.2026 passed in B.A. No. 1851 of 2026 rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, this Court finds that while considering the earlier bail application of the petitioner, this Court had also considered that during investigation, through the CDR, the mobile number of the petitioner was said to be found at the place of occurrence and therefore, in this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner is on different footing as that of the other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 03.07.2026 Uploaded On: 04.07.2026 Mukul/-