( 2026:JHHC:28446 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8787 of 2026 ------ Manshu Mahto, Aged about 75 years, S/o Late Dharam Mahto, R/o Gagi Tola, Bhelwatand, P.O. & P.S. –Peterwar, District –Bokaro. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 21.09.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 155 of 2026 arising out of Peterwar P.S. Case No.149 of 2023(S) corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1121 of 2023(S) registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the B.N.S., 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 rejected vide order dated 23.04.2026 in B.A. No. 3366 of 2026. It is next submitted that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile charge has been framed but no witness has been examined. It is further 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. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that since the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit, the mere fact that charge has been framed in this case is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for bail; as the same is an aggravating factor not a mitigating factor. It is next submitted that the all the members of an unlawful assembly are squarely responsible for the offence committed in prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly and in this case the offence of murder has been committed in prosecution of common object of the assembly and the petitioner was the leading the unlawful assembly. It is next submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the 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 as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 21.09.2026 Sonu/