( 2026:JHHC:21834 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6837 of 2026 ------ Bajrang Nag @ Bajrang Sahu, aged about 23 years, S/o Balram Nag @ Balram Sahu, r/o Village-Bokba, P.O. & P.S.-Koleibira, District- Simdega. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh 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 Kolebira P.S. Case No.20 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No.77 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 452, 341, 323, 506, 302 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2025 in B.A. No.1374 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing murder and the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit, 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 chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail and also the fact that earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit and the mere fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time, is not a sufficient ground to re-consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner which has already been rejected, hence, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 23/07/2026 Abhiraj/