(2026:JHHC:4996) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11425 of 2025 Jaibir Bhuiyan, aged about 24 years, son of Mahadeo Bhuiyan, resident of village- Chamatu, P.O.- Ganeshpur, P.S.- Balumath, District- Latehar, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. --- 03/19.02.2026 Heard Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025 in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 840 of 2025, registered under Sections 103(1), 238(b) & 61(2) of the B.N.S., now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, there is recovery of mobile phone of the deceased. He has submitted that on the similar circumstances, the co-accused namely Raushan Kumar @ Munna and Krishna Kumar have been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the case of the petitioner is on different footing. Learned counsel submits that while granting bail to co-accused Krishna Kumar, it was recorded that on the confession of Roshan Kumar, the murder weapon was recovered and while granting bail to Roshan Kumar, it was recorded that there was no link with the murder weapon i.e. knife. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, the belonging of the deceased has been recovered from his possession. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds 2 that on the confessional statement of the petitioner, the mobile phone has been recovered from the bushes, where it was kept secretly. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witness before the court. 9. The learned counsel of the State is directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned authority for compliance. 10. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:19.02.2026 Jay/- Date of Uploading:19.02.2026