2026:JHHC:6273 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1330 of 2026 Rahul Tiwari @ Rahul Kumar Tiwari, aged about 34 years, Son of Anand Kumar Tiwary, Resident of Village-Baganpara, Harindanga Bazar, Post Office-Pakur, Police Station- Pakur (T), District- Pakur, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Nitu Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate --- 02/10.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2026 in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 163 of 2024, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 352, 351(3), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mobile numbers through which the call was made does not belong to the petitioner and it belongs to one Bhagwan Mandal which was used by Ashish Mandal to threaten the informant. Learned counsel submits that Ashish Mandal and Bishu Karmkar who are the main assailants have been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court. She has submitted that the investigation against the petitioner is going on. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to paragraph 7 of the bail application and submits that co-accused Ashish Mandal has stated that he had threatened the informant in connection with a case which was pending since 2013. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that it was at the instance of 2026:JHHC:6273 2 the petitioner that two co-accused persons had threatened the informant of the case in connection with another pending case and therefore, the case of the petitioner is of different footing. 6. The learned counsel has also submitted that at the instance of the petitioner they had threatened the informant of the case in connection with earlier pending case. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that it was at the instance of the petitioner the informant was threatened in connection with another pending case and it is not in dispute that there is pending case since 2013. In view of the aforesaid allegation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. This bail application is accordingly rejected at this stage. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 10.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-11.03.2026