( 2026:JHHC:25110 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7818 of 2026 ------ Sandip Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Bindu Saw, r/o Village-Chhitra, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.- Palamu … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 20.08.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. No. 117 of 2026 arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case No.76 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/238 of the B.N.S., 2023. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 13.03.2026 and 03.07.2026 in B.A. Nos. 1852 of 2026 and 6088 of 2026 respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed murder of Chandan Bhuiya and caused disappearance of the evidence of murder. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and P.W.2 has supported the case of the prosecution and has named the petitioner to be one of the persons who abducted her deceased husband and identified him in Court but she has departed from the statement made under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and the rest two witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3 and 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.11.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 13 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the testimony of P.W.2 wherein, she has categorically stated that the petitioner is one of the persons who abducted her husband and later on her husband was murdered and no attention of her was drawn in her cross-examination regarding any departure made by her from her statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., 2023 so, it is not open for the petitioner to agitate before this Court of any departure made by P.W.2 from her earlier statement recorded by police under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., 2023. It is further submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that in view of the direct allegation against the petitioner which has come through the deposition of P.W.2, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 20.08.2026 Gunjan-