( 2026:JHHC:28526 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4236 of 2026 ------ Brij Mohan Bhagat, aged about 28 years, S/o Shir Mahadav Bhagat, R/o Village-Bhakso Harra Toli, P.O.-Arkosa, P.S.-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand-835302. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.04 Dated- 21-09-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No.95 of 2025 arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No.108 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 140(1), 351(2), 3(5), 103(1), 238 & 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Sanjay Oraon. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submits that so far, 11 witnesses including the IO and doctor who conducted the autopsy has been examined in this case and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that apart from this case, the petitioner is involved in two other cases. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.07.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no.33 of the bail application. 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 PW-03 has categorically stated in para-04 of her cross-examination that she heard the deceased while being assaulted that ‘Birju mujhe mat maaro, mai gaon chhod kar chala jaunga’ which means Birju that is the name of the petitioner, ‘don’t assault me, I will leave the village’ and there is absolutely no cross- examination of the PW-03 in respect of this part of the examination in chief and the same is sufficient to bring home the charge against the petitioner; because in the absence of any cross-examination in this respect, the same is to be treated as true. It is then submitted that there are circumstantial evidence also which has come through the testimony of the material witnesses examined in this case and further there is also the petitioner leading to recovery of incriminating articles in connection with this case and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses have not been demolished in their cross-examination and in view of the overwhelming evidence that has come on record against the petitioner, 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 be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail and the evidence that has already come against the petitioner through 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution and as all the witnesses examined during the trial 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. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 21/09/2026 Abhiraj/