2026:JHHC:21225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3992 of 2026 ---- Ravi Toppo, S/o Sri Ramesh Toppo, Aged about 31 years, R/o – Tambo, P.O.- Chaibasa, P.S.-Mufasil, District – Chaibasa, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand – 833201. …. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv. ---- 04/Dated: 18th July, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 2. The applicant who is in custody since 24.07.2025 has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. No.349 of 2025 arising out of Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.56 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No.348 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.12080 of 2025. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part. 5. The present bail application has been renewed only on the ground that subsequently one of the co-accused has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 19.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.1733 of 2026. 6. Learned counsel for the State and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. 7. From perusal of that order and also the order dated 19.06.2026 passed in B.A. No.3684 of 2026, it transpires that in the bail granting order has not been 2026:JHHC:21225 Page | 2 B.A. No.3992 of 2026 taken into consideration the factual matrix of the case. The fact remains that the present applicant has also been identified in the Test Identification Parade. 8. Considering the above facts and the nature of crime, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail once again. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 18th July, 2026 Amar/- Uploaded on 21.07.2026