[ 2026:JHHC:21299] THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6603 of 2026 ------ Yugal Kishore Vishwakarma, aged about 54, S/o- Tilakdhary Vishwakarma, Resident of Village- Bhandaro and P.S.- Dumari, P.O.- Naitand, District-Giridih. .... .... …. Petitioner. Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party. ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate. Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 17-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No. 102 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 307/34 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the accused person attempted to murder Toop Lal Mandal by firing upon him causing fire arm injury to him. It is next submitted that the co-accused Ramanand Sharma @ Ramanand Vishwakarma has been granted bail. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or witnesses of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.05.2026 as mentioned in para-14. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl.P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of firing upon Toop Lal Mandal and causing gun-shot injuries to him. It is next submitted that though the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected about two years ago, but the petitioner has been absconding for about two years and there is every chance of the petitioner again 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, the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 17 /07/2026 Amar/