( 2026:JHHC:28203 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7426 of 2026 ------ 1. Geeta Devi, aged about 35 years, wife of Baldev Machhuwa, r/o Village-Lodhma Rargaon, P.O.-Rargaon, P.S.-Tamar, Dist.-Ranchi 2. Baldev Machhuwa, aged about 40 years, s/o Chhote Machchuaa, r/o Village-Lodhma Rargaon, P.O.-Rargaon, P.S.-Tamar, Dist.-Ranchi … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate : Mr. Tushar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.04 Dated- 17.09.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No.11 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/123/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has committed the murder of Shankar Nayak by administering poison to him with the tea offered by them to the deceased, who used to live in front of the house of the petitioners, across the road. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and there is contradiction in the motive of the petitioners committing the murder of the deceased as on one hand it is claimed that there was a illicit relationship between the deceased and the petitioner no.1 but the two witnesses who have been examined during the trial have stated that there was land dispute between the petitioners and the deceased and that was a motive for murder. It is then submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 10.01.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 07 of the bail application and there is delay in lodging of the FIR. It is next submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that P.W.2 is the eye witness to the occurrence and his testimony is sufficient to bring home the charge against the petitioners. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that P.W.1 has also stated the case of the prosecution though he is not the eye witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail in view of the overwhelming evidence that has already come through the witnesses examined during the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail as well as the evidence that has come through the witnesses during the trial against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioners on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 17.09.2026 Gunjan-