2026:JHHC:19491 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5567 of 2026 Sumit Tana Bhagat, Son of Rajkumar Tana Bhagat … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate --- 04/3rd July 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 63 of 2025 arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 57 of 2025 for the offence registered under Section 103(1) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2024 and earlier the bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn on 19.02.2026 in B.A. No. 8804 of 2025 and this bail application has been again filed on 08.05.2026. The learned counsel submits that out of seven witnesses, only two have been examined as is apparent from the impugned order dated 23.04.2026. The learned counsel submits that though the petitioner has a number of criminal antecedents, but the petitioner has been granted bail in all the cases. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has been made an accused merely on the basis of suspicion, as it is alleged in the FIR that the informant found his son with blood oozing from his neck, and one Mantosh Tana Bhagat allegedly saw the petitioner running away from the place of occurrence. It is further alleged that the petitioner had killed the informant's son by shooting him. 2026:JHHC:19491 2 3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there are five criminal cases including the present one registered against the petitioner and most of them are registered under the provisions of Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. The learned counsel has also submitted that the arm used for the commission of offence has also been recovered on the confessional statement of the petitioner. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the considering the fact that the petitioner has numerous criminal antecedents and that the petitioner is named accused in the FIR, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. However, there can be no reason on the part of the State not to produce the remaining witnesses before the learned Court. 6. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses/materials collected during investigation before the learned court. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. 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/-