[2026:JHHC:24488] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.7086 of 2026 ------ Khuda Nawaz Ray @ Kaify, aged about 25 years, S/o Sahab Ali Ray, Resident of Village Dhanghari Basti, P.O. – Baidhmara, P.S. – Harla, District – Bokaro. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated:-14-08-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Nawadih P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 297 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 140, 103, 238, 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in B.A. No. 10313 of 2025 and subsequently, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2026 passed in B.A. No. 3227 of 2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, PW-2 to 5 have been examined in this case. It is then submitted that PW-2 is the doctor who conducted autopsy and PW-3 to 5 are the material witnesses; who have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner is suffering from several ailments. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.06.2025 as mentioned in para-01 of the instant bail application. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-26 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the Medical Report submitted in Annexure-3 is not related to any eye problem rather the same is allergic Rhinitis. It is next submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence that has come on record through the five witnesses examined in this case; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail and also the fact that the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected twice on merits, this Court is not inclined to admit the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 14.08.2026 Saroj/