[2026:JHHC:21859] THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3487 of 2026 ------ Tanmay Banerjee @ Tanmay Kumar Bandhopadhyay, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Dili Kumar Banerjee, resident of 166A Bahadur Road Behala, P.O. & P.S.-Behala & District-Kolkata-700034(West Bengal). .... .... …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sitapati Devi, aged about not known, wife of Damodar Prasad R/O Tahijama Mohalla, P.O. & P.S. & District- Garhwa. .... .... .... Opposite Parties. ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P For the OP No.2 : Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Arpit Raj, Advocate. Ms. Anjali Kumari, Advocate. ------ Order No.04 Dated- 23-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 264 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 1358 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. This is the second journey of the petitioner for regular bail earlier the bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.02.2025 in B.A. No.8340 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile 04 witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.05.2024 as mentioned in para- 04 of the instant bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or witnesses of the case. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. The learned Addl.P.P. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that in view of overwhelming evidence that has come in the record are against the petitioner through the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the fact that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail; the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner which has been corroborated by the 04 witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution so far; this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable ground to reconsider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner, which has earlier been rejected on merit and there is every chance of the petitioner of 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 Amar/