( 2026:JHHC:26198 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8070 of 2026 ------ Nishan Hunni Purty, S/o Tintus Purty, Aged about 20 years, R/o Vill –Indipidi, P.O. –Murhu, P.S. –Murhu, District – Khunti, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Salil Sitanshu, Advocate : Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 31.08.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Bundu P.S. Case No.68 of 2023, S.T. Case No. 122 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1- B)a/26/27/35 of the Arms Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed dacoity and looted Rs.2.5 lakh of cash and mobile phone of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It is then submitted that though the petitioner has been identified in the Test Identification Parade but he has no criminal antecedent. It is next submitted that the co-accused persons have already been admitted to bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner has been identified in the Test Identification Parade by the informant to be the person who opened fire upon the informant and the looted wooden cash box of the informant has also been led to recovery by the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner stand on different footing than that of the co- accused person who has been granted 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 the fact that he has been identified in the Test Identification Parade, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 31.08.2026 Sonu/