[2026:JHHC:25398] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7350 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kushwaha, aged about 35 years, son of Late Shambhu Saran, resident of Footlathi Bandh, Parshotiga, P.O. &P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. V.K.Vashistha, Spl. PP 03 / 21.08.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Muffasil P. S. case no. 25 of 2025 (G.R. case no. 169 of 2025) instituted under Section 316 (2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 (2), 341(1), 61(2) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as his earlier bail application was rejected vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed in B.A. No. 5424 of 2025 and another bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.12.2025 passed in B.A. No. 11229 of 2025. It is next submitted that the fresh ground for admitting the petitioner on regular bail is that PW 1 has been examined during the trial but has supported the case of prosecution. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 24.02.2025, as mentioned in para 12 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner be admitted to regular bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner, has already been rejected on merit; the mere fact that the PW1 has been examined during the trial and he has supported the case of the prosecution, is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner as there is also every chance of the petitioner absconding as well as tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of defrauding money to the tune of Rs. 1,58,96,800/- in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused person and the fact that PW1 has supported the case of the prosecution; the ground that the petitioner has been in custody for some more time, is not a sufficient ground to admit the petitioner to bail, hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above- named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above- named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 21.08.2026 Smita/-