( 2026:JHHC:20986 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6572 of 2026 ------ Lilawati Devi, aged about 26 years, wife of Ashok Das, resident of Village-Karodih, Post-Dhuraita, Police Station Jamua, District- Giridih. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Bandana Sinha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 15-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.106 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No.406 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 103(1), 351(2) & 352 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the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.04.2026 in B.A. No.12107 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly committed murder of Kartik Das by assaulting him. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.08.2025 as has been mentioned in para-01 of the instant bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner was involved in three other cases as mentioned in para-10 of the instant bail application. It is also submitted that the petitioner does not know whether any witness has been examined during the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on 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 so far one witness has been examined during the trial and he has supported the case of the prosecution which fact has been suppressed by the petitioner and keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and her criminal antecedents, 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 as well as her criminal antecedents, 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. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 15/07/2026 Abhiraj/