( 2026:JHHC:21261 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6642 of 2026 ------ Amik Yadav @ Amit Yadav, aged about 48 years, S/o Kishan Yadav, Resident of Village-Sripathar, P.O. + P.S.-Dhoraiya, District-Banka (Bihar). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 18-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of bail in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No.107 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 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 murder of Pritam Devi. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been in custody since 15.04.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 20 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-19 of this bail application. It is further submitted that the one of the co-accused persons has been granted bail after remaining in custody for over one year and the petitioner does not know how many witnesses have been examined in the separate trial of the co-accused person. It is also submitted that though the co-accused Umesh Yadav was given the privilege of anticipatory bail and the prayer for anticipatory bail of the other co-accused as also that of the petitioner, was rejected by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. It is next 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 or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of Pritam Devi, 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 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.) 18/07/2026 Abhiraj/