( 2026:JHHC:26833 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8236 of 2026 ------ Chiku Kumar @ Sunny Singh, aged about 27 years, son of Satendra Kumar Singh @ Satyendra Singh, resident of Redma Ward No.26, P.O. + P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand-822101, (Aadhar No.-5093 5405 7707). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 07-09-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Daltonganj P.S. Case No.535 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1176 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under section 309(4) of the BNS, 2023. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.07.2026 in B.A. No.6310 of 2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, 02 witnesses have been examined and of course both of them have supported the case of the prosecution, but in their respective cross-examination, they have stated that they are not interested to fight the case. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.04.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no.10 of the bail application. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a mental patient. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the very fact that the petitioner is actively participated in the trial of the case including effective cross-examination of the witnesses at length and the petitioner obviously did not take any plea of insanity in the trial court, so there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that he is mental patient nor any document has been filed along with this bail application to show that the petitioner is mental patient. It is next submitted that keeping in view the 06 criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is hard to believe that the petitioner is a mental patient rather there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail and also the petitioner is a threat to the law-and-order situation of the locality and there is likelihood of the petitioner indulging in similar offences, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail as also his criminal antecedents as well as the evidence that has already come on record through the examination of the PW-01 & 02 who have supported the case of the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 07/09/2026 Abhiraj/