( 2026:JHHC:26810 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7601 of 2026 Mangu Munda @ Manga Munda @ Shivnath Munda, aged about 39 years, S/o Nane Munda, R/o Village :- Harvagarah Lungtu, PO and PS- Tamar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. . … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP --- 07/07.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2026 in connection with Tamar P. S. Case No.6 of 2026 (S.T. No.245 of 2026) for the offences registered under Sections 103(1). 118(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and the case is pending in the court of learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the FIR, but he has been entangled only on the basis of suspicion. He submits that apart from that, there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Further, there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 4. He further submits that one Jumbi Kumari who has disclosed the alleged occurrence to her brother (informant of the case), but did not disclose that she had seen the petitioner at the place of occurrence. However, she has stated so in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. It is submitted that there is material improvement in the case. 5. He has further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State while opposing the prayer has referred to the statement of said Jumbi Kumari who is said to have seen the petitioner while running away from the place of ( 2026:JHHC:26810 ) 2 occurrence. However, the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner have not been disputed. 7. Upon this learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2026. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the fact remains that said Jumbi Kumari had stated in her statement that she had seen the petitioner running away from the place of occurrence and that the petitioner has threatened Jumbi Kumari not to disclose about the occurrence to anybody and the reason for the occurrence has been stated in the FIR itself that the petitioner wanted to marry said Jumbi Kumari and her mother (deceased) was opposing the said marriage which became the reason for the alleged offence , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, the prayer for bail is rejected. Material witness is yet to be examined before the court. 9. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of said Jumbi Kumari before the learned court in the trial. 10. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 07.09/.2026 Uploaded sandeep/