( 2026:JHHC:21840 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6844 of 2026 ------ Anil Kumar Yadav @ Anil Yadav, aged about 24 years, son of Tejan Yadav, Resident of Salanpur Basti, Akashkanali, P.O.-Katras, P.S.- Katras, District-Dhanbad. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 23-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No.23 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 309(4) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed robbery and snatched the licensed rifle along with 02 live cartridges and mobile phone of Angad Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR but he has been identified in T.I.P. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.06.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no.27 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-28 of this bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner dared to loot the licensed rifle of the informant and he has been identified in the TIP, there is every chance of the petitioner 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 as well as the fact that he has been identified in TIP and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 23/07/2026 Abhiraj/