( 2026:JHHC:29778 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8806 of 2026 ------ Imran Ansari @ Md. Imran, aged about 32 years, S/o Moin Ansari @ Idrish Miyan, R/o Village –Nagarwa Patthar, P.O. – Karharbari, P.S. –Pachamba, District –Giridih. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 05.10.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 392 of 2024 arising out of Pachamba P.S. Case No.59 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has been dismissed as withdrawn twice vide order dated 20.08.2025 in B.A. No. 7128 of 2025 and vide order dated 30.06.2026 in B.A. No. 3532 of 2026. 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 has committed murder of Mubarak Ansari. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that so far nine witnesses have been examined and the P.W.4 who claims to be the eye-witness of the case has not taken the name of the petitioner. 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 P.W.3 who is the eye-witness of the occurrence has categorically stated inter-alia that the petitioner being the member of an unlawful assembly having assaulted the deceased with Bhujali (a sharp cutting weapon) resulting in his death and other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that so far as PW-4 is concerned, she has also taken the name of the petitioner but there is an apparent spelling mistake in the name of the petitioner while recording the deposition but she identified the petitioner in court and in view of the overwhelming evidence that has already come against the petitioner, 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 and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence in view of the overwhelming evidence that has already come through the witnesses examined during the trial, 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.) 05.10.2026 Sonu/