( 2026:JHHC:5012 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11617 of 2025 ------ 1. Nirmal Bhuiyan, aged about 60 years, s/o late Chandranath Bhuiyan 2. Mulwa Devi, aged about 55 years, w/o Nirmal Bhuiyan Both are residents of Village-Kutamu, P.O. & P.S.-Manika, Dist.-Latehar (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Ms. Saman Ahmad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 19.02.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 167 of 2025 arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.31 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/238 of the B.N.S., 2023 and charge has been framed under Sections 103(1)/238/3(5) of B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed murder of Ramdhari Bhuiya by tying him and beating him throughout the night and also caused disappearance of the evidence of murder. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is then submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 30.03.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the informant in no uncertain manner has stated that the deceased himself before his death disclosed that he was being beaten by the petitioners after tying him throughout the night in the house of the petitioners and the same can be treated as dying declaration of the deceased and in view of the overwhelming evidence, there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioners be admitted to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 19.02.2026 Gunjan-