[2026:JHHC:26380 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI BA. No. 6580 of 2026 Junul Mundu, aged about 50 years, son of Late Santosh Mundu, Resident of village-Bamhani, P.O.Bamhani, police station -Murhu,District-Khunti … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedy, Adv. For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu , Addl.. PP 04 / 31.08.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Murhu P. S. case no. 29 of 2009 corresponding to G. R. No 110 of 2009 instituted under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 326, 307, 302, 201, 120B of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the member of an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapon, committed murder of Markus Munda, Dugdu Munda, Shanti Pahan Dodrai and Tetuha @ Prasan Dodrai and burnt their dead bodies, after cutting the same into pieces. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and 19 co-accused persons who faced the trial, have been acquitted vide the judgment dated 06.09.2028 in S.T. case no. 603 of 2013/ S.T. case no. 372 of 2014. It is next submitted that the petitioner is involved in five other cases apart from this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 04.05.2026, as mentioned in para 14 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased persons and cutting their dead body into pieces and in view of the fact that he was absconding for a considerable period of time and he is also involved in five other cases and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the fact that though the occurrence took place on 02.04.2009 but the petitioner could be apprehended only on 04.05.2026 and he is also involved in five other cases as also the chance of his absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 31.08.2026 Smita/-