2026:JHHC:24587 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7669 of 2026 ---- Astafak Alam @ Ashfak Alam, aged about 25 years, Son of Mojib Alam … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Goving Ray Karan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P. --- 02/17.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.05.2026 in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 70 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 309(6) of B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a vegetable seller and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that it is just the matter of chance that his mobile had fell down and it was recovered by the informant of the case. He submits that the charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that as per the allegation while the informant was returning home after attending marriage ceremony, three unknown persons riding on a motorcycle intercepted her and one caught hold of her hands and the second covered her mouth and tried to strangle her neck and the third one removed her gold mangalsutra and other articles when the informant screamed they ran away and while fleeing from the place of occurrence mobile phone of one of the accused fell down. He submits that it is the present petitioner whose mobile fell down and was handed over by the informant to the police and she also claimed to identify the present petitioner. 2026:JHHC:24587 2 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident is at night at 10.30 pm and therefore, it cannot be said that the informant to identify the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the prosecution story and that the mobile of the petitioner was recovered in the process of commission of crime and victim is yet to be examined this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 17.08.2026 Uploaded on: 20.08.2026 MM/