[2026:JHHC:29284] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8384 of 2026 ------ Baiju Ravidas, aged about 58 years, Son of Late Puran Ravidas, Resident of Shakti Nagar, Alakapuri, Behind Rajdoot Showroom, P.O. & P.S.- Pachamba, Dist.- Giridih .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.03 Dated-29-09-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No.18 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No.552 of 2024 registered under Section 103(1), 238 of the B.N.S., 2023. This is the fourth journey of the petitioner with the self-same prayer for regular bail as earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was last rejected on merit by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.02.2026 passed in B.A. No.12019 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.08.2024. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the overwhelming evidence that has come from the witnesses examined during the trial, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail and since the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit after examination of the twelve witnesses so the mere fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for bail which has already been rejected on merit. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, the evidence that has already come through the witnesses examined during the trial as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail merely because the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-29.09.2026-Animesh/