( 2026:JHHC:9141 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 12146 of 2025 Amar Oraon, aged about 22 years, son of Gandru Oraon, Resident of Village Pipra Toli, P.O. Tala, P.S. Chanho, District-Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP --- 04/01.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 95 of 2025, arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 108 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 140(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and subsequently Section 103(1), 238, 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 was added vide order dated 07.07.2025 and charge has been framed under Sections 140(1), 351(3), 103(1), 238(a) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 on 07.11.2025 and the case is pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Lohardaga. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, but his name has transpired in the confessional statement of named co-accused namely Brij Mohan Bhagat who stated that he had hired three persons to kill the victim. He has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has also submitted that co-accused Raju Mahli has been granted bail by a co- ordinate Bench of this court. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is one more criminal case against the petitioner and has submitted that on the confessional statement of the petitioner, the mobile and key of the bike of the victim has been recovered from a well. ( 2026:JHHC:9141 ) 2 5. So far as co-accused Raju Mahli is concerned, the order granting bail reveals that apart from the confessional statement, there was nothing against the said co-accused. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is recovery on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.04.2026 Uploaded on: 02.04.2026 Binit/