2026:JHHC:5334 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.391 of 2026 Sahabuddin Ansari, aged about 29 years, son of Khairat Mian @ Khairat Ansari, Resident of Village – Jaipur, Dumurya, P.O & P.S – Nirsa, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand. …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, A.P.P --------- 02/Dated: 24 th February, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The applicant, who is in custody since 12.07.2024, has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. No.577 of 2024, arising out of Chirkunda (Galfarbadi) P.S. Case No.136 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 302/ 397/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – XI, Dhanbad. It appears that the prayer for bail of this applicant has been rejected twice on merit. Lastly, the prayer for bail of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 18.07.2025, passed in B.A. No.5503 of 2025. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his/ her part. Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that the period of custody is the main ground for renewing the prayer for bail and further, the similarly situated co-accused namely, Rabbani Ansari, has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025, passed in B.A. No.10533 of 2024. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been renewed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 5. From perusal of order dated 13.02.2025, passed in B.A. - 1 - B.A. No.391 of 2026 2026:JHHC:5334 No.10533 of 2024, it appears that no recovery has been shown, but the learned A.P.P has submitted that wrongs facts have been placed, there is recovery of mobile phone of the deceased. If the order has been passed in wrong facts that cannot be a ground for giving similar treatment to the co-accused. 6. Since in the present case, there is recovery of mobile phone of the deceased from the possession of this applicant, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected once again. 7. The trial court is expected to expedite the trial and conclude the same, as soon as possible. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 24th February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- Uploaded on 25.02.2026 - 2 - B.A. No.391 of 2026