[2026:JHHC:29754] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.7577 of 2026 ------ Chhotu Singh aged about 54 years, S/o Late Basudeo Singh Resident of Village Ambakola P.O. & P.S. Telaiya, District- Koderma. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishnupad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl.P.P. Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Sahil, Advocate. ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-05-10-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 141 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of B.N.S. 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner files supplementary affidavit, keep the same in the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed murder of Jharia Singh and caused disappearance of the evidence of murder in order to screen himself from the offence of murder. It is submitted that the co-accused person Mahendar Yadav alleged to have committed murder of the deceased – Jhari Singh and the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of his extra-judicial confession made before the witness Chandrika Singh and consequent upon his arrest, the petitioner has led to recovery of blood stained stick which was used in commission of murder of deceased-Jharia Singh. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, but none of the witnesses have been examined in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.05.2026 as mentioned in para-05 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the extra-judicial confession made before the witness – Chandrika Singh and leading to recovery of weapon of offence; 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 released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of murder as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 05.10.2026 Amar/