[2026:JHHC:21274] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6704 of 2026 ------ Satyendra Yadav, aged about 34 years, son of Ramchandra Yadav, resident of Village Chetma, P.O. & P.S. Mahuadanr, Dist. Latehar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-18-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with G.R. Case No.755 of 2025 corresponding to Mahuadanr P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 308(4), 308(7), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. 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 on merit by this Court vide order dated 08.06.2026 passed in B.A. No. 9596 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that the petitioner has been in custody for some more time. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.06.2025 as mentioned in para-1 of the instant bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner is habitually involved in collection of extortion from terrorist activities of a Maoists organisation, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. It is next submitted that since the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was already rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 08.06.2026 passed in B.A. No. 9596 of 2025, hence, there is no justifiable reason to allow the same only because the petitioner has been in custody for some more time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, and also the fact that the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the sole ground that the petitioner remained in custody for some more time, is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner which was earlier rejected on merit. Hence, this Court is not inclined to admit the above named petitioner to bail . Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 18.07.2026 Saroj/