( 2026:JHHC:20612 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6452 of 2026 ------ Sanjeev Kumar @ Jhagru, aged about 30 years, s/o Narayan Mandal, r/o Karnibagh, P.O.-Balanand Ashram, P.S.-Kunda, Dist.-Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 13.07.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Rikhiya P.S. Case No.38 of 2026 registered under Section 103 (1), 238 and 3 (5) of the B.N.S, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, has committed the murder of Dilip Turi and caused disappearance of the evidence of murder by throwing the dead body of the deceased in a field. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that except suspicion and the petitioner being last seen with the deceased, there is no other material in the record to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.03.2026. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and submit that there is C.C.T.V. footage to the effect that the petitioner was going along with the deceased and the co-accused persons towards the field and the location of the mobile phone of the deceased and the petitioner was exactly at the place of occurrence, hence, keeping in the view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is lastly submitted that the bail of the co-accused person with similar allegation has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2026 in B.A. No.5494 of 2026. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 13.07.2026 Gunjan-