[2026:JHHC:10077] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. no. 1841 of 2026 Jitendra Nath Singh aged about 34 years son of Bhramar Singh, resident of Dhalbhumgarh, P.O. and P.S. Dhalbhumgarh, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K.Chakraverty , Adv. For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha , Addl.. PP 03 / 08.04.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection MGM P.S. case no. 166 of 2025 instituted under Section 309 (4) and 309 (6) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed robbery and looted Rs. 4,500/- from the informant and also the Scooty of the informant- victim. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and though the petitioner has been identified in TIP but the TIP was held after much delay, after the apprehension of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 29.10.2025, as mentioned in para 11 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case, hence, the petitioner may be admitted to regular bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that because of the non-availability of the informant, as the informant had no prior information that the petitioner will be apprehended by the police on a particular day, the TIP could not be conducted immediately after the petitioner was arrested. It is next submitted that the since the petitioner has been identified in the TIP, hence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 08.04.2026 Smita/-