( 2026:JHHC:28985 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8996 of 2026 ------ Ganesh Pandit, aged about 20 years, Son of Nilkanth Pandit, R/o –Sonajori Kumhar Tola, P.O. & P.S. –Barhait, District – Sahibganj, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 25.09.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No.15 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(2), 352 of the B.N.S., 2023 and later on Section 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 has been added. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly assaulted Naresh Pandit resulting in his death. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the first assault upon Naresh Pandit was made by Dharoni Pandit but there is general and omnibus allegation that all other named accused persons assaulted Naresh Pandit thereafter. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of Naresh Pandit, 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 direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 25.09.2026 Sonu/