2026:JHHC:25663 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7680 of 2026 Kasif Mun Amin, aged about 25 years, son of – Md. Imtiyaz Ansari, Resident of village – Bazartand, P.O. & P.S. – Gola, District - Ramgarh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, APP --- 04/25.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.150 of 2024, registered under Sections 448, 394, 302, 336, 427 of Indian Penal Code, and charge framed under Sections 396, 412, 448, 436, 427, 120B of IPC, now pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh as S.T. Case No.144/2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.06.2024 and has no criminal antecedent. He has further submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 07.10.2025 in B.A. No. 5789 of 2025. 4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail primarily on the ground of custody. It is further submitted that out of 23 charge-sheeted witnesses, only 9 have been examined so far, including the informant as P.W. 2 and her husband. 5. The learned counsel has further submitted that numerous other witnesses are yet to be examined and there is no likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and considering the period of custody, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He submits that a co- accused namely Md. Nasim has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 07.04.2026 in B.A. No.2804 of 2026. 6. The learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer for bail, submits that the co-accused was enlarged on bail as he had no 2026:JHHC:25663 2 criminal antecedents and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted. 7. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that incriminating articles were recovered on the basis of his confession statement, as is apparent from the impugned order itself. 8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegations, the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit, and that crucial material witnesses including the seizure list witnesses, are yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. 9. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:25.08.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:29.08.2026