[2026:JHHC:25644] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.7929 of 2026 ------ Ram Kandulna @ Chhaila Ram, aged about 46 years, Son of Sukhram Kandulna, Resident of Village – Gatibandhu Pujar Toli, P.O. & P.S. – Mahabuang, District – Simdega (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated:-25-08-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 25 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 78 of 2026 arising out of Mahabuang P.S. Case No. 01 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Chamu Kandulna. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the weapon of offence has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that one witness has been examined in this case who is not the eye-witness to the occurrence but he has supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 05.01.2026 as mentioned in para-12 of the instant bail application. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-13 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 on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of the deceased, 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, 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:- 25.08.2026 Saroj/