( 2026:JHHC:27564 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8482 of 2026 ------ Syoraj Singh @ Jasse Paji @ Shashi Kundra, aged about 42 years, son of Ravish Singh, resident of House No. 118, Mishra Building, Mehulbara Chowk, Golmuri, Town-Jamshedpur, P.S.-Golmuri, P.O.-Golmuri, Dist.-East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna M. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Avnish Prakhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 14.09.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. No. 283 of 2026 arising out of Kadma P.S. Case No.96 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 310(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed robbery and looted gold jewellery, watch and idols of God made up of gold and silver. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been identified in T.I. Parade and the co-accused persons who were not put to T.I. Parade have been admitted to bail. It is then submitted that though charge sheet has been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.10 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.10.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 09 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that as the petitioner has been identified in the T.I. Parade, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on 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 chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 14.09.2026 Gunjan-