( 2026:JHHC:19832 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4341 of 2026 ------ Kailash Ram, son of Late Balmiki Ram, aged about 63 years, resident of Village Belatand, P.O.-Baddiha, P.S-Giridih (M), District-Giridih, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, Advocate For the State : Ms. Bandana Sinha, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate ------ Order No.03 Dated- 06-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No.292 of 2025 arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 115(2), 118 & 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.12.2025 in B.A. No.9138 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that a third witness has been examined in the meanwhile, who is the injured person and he has also supported the case of the prosecution like the other witnesses. It is next submitted that the co- accused has been granted bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant/victim or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.03.2025 as is evident from para-25 of this bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant 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 which is supported by the three witnesses examined by the prosecution so far, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the evidence that has already come on record through the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 06/07/2026 Abhiraj/