( 2026:JHHC:20199 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5596 of 2026 ------ Sukhram Pradhan @ Sega, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Soma Pradhan, R/o Village-Jalmay, Tola-Karkalanagar, P.O. & P.S.- Bandgaon, District-West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Neha Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, 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 Karaikela P.S. Case No.05 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. No.515 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected twice vide order dated 05.12.2024 in B.A. No.10072 of 2024 & order dated 29.08.2025 in B.A. No.7939 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, PW-6- IO of the case has been examined and he has supported the case of the prosecution. 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 29.05.2023 as is evident from para-01 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 merely because the PW-6 has been examined, who has supported the case of the prosecution, is not a sufficient ground to admit the petitioner on bail, whose prayer for bail has already been rejected on merit twice, moreover 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 chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail as well as the fact that the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected twice on merit, 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/