2026:JHHC:7103 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11649 of 2025 Shivam Rana @ Doko, aged about 25 years, Son of Bisheshwar Rana, Resident of Village Shiv Pahar, Ramratan Singh Road, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate --- 06/16.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2024 in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 105 of 2024, Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 71 of 2025 arising out of S.T. No. 67 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 191(1), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 118(1), 190(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a number of persons had jointly assaulted the deceased and so far as the injured person is concerned, his statement has been recorded after 2½ months from the date of incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that four co-accused have been enlarged on bail in B.A. No. 6461 of 2025 vide order dated 08.09.2025 and in B.A. No. 4389 of 2025 vide order dated 08.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the injured victim who suffered grievous injuries has specifically alleged against the petitioner and he is not only injured victim, but also an eye witness to the incident. 2026:JHHC:7103 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid submission and that there is direct allegation against petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. So far as the bail of co-accused persons are concerned, they were given bail on the submission that the specific allegation was against the present petitioner and one Mithun Yadav and therefore, the case of the petitioner stands on different footing. 7. The instant bail application is rejected accordingly. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 16.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-17.03.2026