( 2026:JHHC:24511 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.7639 of 2026 ------ Piyush Pratap Singh, aged about 28 years, son of Birendra Singh, resident of Village-Muhalla, Aurangabad Road, P.O.-Amba, P.S.- Kutumba, District-Aurangabad, Bihar, PIN-824111. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Suman Saurav, Advocate : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P (VC) ------ Order No.02 Dated- 14-08-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.148 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.583 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 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 21.07.2025 in B.A. No.6111 of 2025 and SLP (Crl) No.14649 of 2025 filed against the said rejection order of the bail application, has already been dismissed; albeit the trial Court was directed to examine the remaining witnesses within a period of 04 months from 12.01.2026 and in the event of the examination of the witnesses could not be complete, the petitioner was given liberty to renew bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of dismissal of SLP (Crl) No.14649 of 2025, only 01 witness was examined and after that, two more witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody since 21.12.2024 as has been mentioned in para-01 of this bail application. It is further 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 Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of embezzlement of Government Revenue money to the tune of Rs.47,83,143/- as also 03 witnesses examined during the trial so far have all supported the case of the prosecution 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 of embezzlement of Government Revenue money to the tune of Rs.47,83,143/- as also 03 witnesses examined during the trial so far has supported the case of the prosecution and in view of the overwhelming evidence that has already come on record 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 at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 14/08/2026 Abhiraj/