2026:JHHC:26484 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8146 of 2026 Janeshwar Bhuiyan, aged about 42 years, Son of Ramdas Bhuiyan, resident of village Telavi, Chhattarpur, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Chhattarpur, District Palamau … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Advocate --- 05/2nd September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 170/2026 arising out of Chhattarpur P.S. Case No. 204/2025 for the offence registered under Section 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Palamau. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the FIR and happens to be the elder brother-in-law of the deceased, but he has been falsely implicated in this case. The co-accused, who is the wife of the present petitioner, has been enlarged on bail by the learned court, but the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected. The charge has already been framed. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of using tangi to assault the deceased, who died due to such injuries. In the impugned order, it has come that there are two eye-witnesses to the occurrence, one is the son of the deceased and another is Amrita Devi, who stated that it was the petitioner who gave the tangi blow. The co- accused has been enlarged on bail on this ground and that she was only involved in oral altercation with the deceased. 2026:JHHC:26484 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that, as mentioned in the impugned order, there are two eye-witnesses to the occurrence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 02.09.2026 Uploaded On: 03.09.2026 Mukul/-