( 2026:JHHC:20201 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5635 of 2026 ------ Amar Kumar Kevat @ Amar Kr. Kewat, aged about 28 years, S/o Maliya Kevat, R/o Village-Halamad, P.O. & P.S.-Silli, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Anand, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.03 Dated- 08-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Sikidari P.S. Case No.14 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No.582 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) & 238 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 26.11.2025 in B.A. No.9457 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, charge has been framed against the petitioner, but no witness has been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the co-accused has already 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 22.03.2025 as is evident from para-07 of this bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that since the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit, the mere fact that charge has been framed against the petitioner which is an aggravating factor; cannot be a ground to re-consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner which has already been rejected on merit, more so, as 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 as the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by the co- ordinate bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the mere fact that charge has been framed against the petitioner is not a sufficient ground to re-consider the bail which has already been rejected on merit. Moreover, considering the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail and the facts of this case, 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.) 08/07/2026 Abhiraj/