[2026:JHHC:29491] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8360 of 2026 ------ Deepak Verma @ Deepak Kumar Verma, Aged about 47 years, S/o Madan Lal Verma, R/o Kola Kusuma, K.G. Ashram, P.O., P.S. & Dist Dhanbad. ... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-30-09-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 441 of 2024 (S.T. Case No. 213 of 2026) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2026 passed in B.A. No. 1351 of 2026 and again rejected on 08.05.2026 in B.A. No. 3654 of 2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile four witnesses have been examined including the informant; out of whom the P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile by the prosecution and even though prosecution put leading questions to him, still he did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W. 2 has stated that he does not know who committed murder of his brother Sahabuddin Siddiqui. P.W.3 who is the wife of deceased has categorically stated in para 5 that she could know that Gopi Khan and Prince Khan have fired upon her husband. It is next submitted that P.W.4 who is the informant he has stated in para 3 that he could not identify the assailants of his brother and in para 8 he has categorically stated that he could not identify the petitioner who was produced during the trial through video conferencing. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.12.2025 as mentioned in para-01 of the instant bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-25 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to 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 released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge- VI, Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 441 of 2024 (S.T. Case No. 213 of 2026) with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 30.09.2026 Amar/