[2026:JHHC:9810 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. no. 2771 of 2026 Kedar Yadav, aged about 30 years, son of Baleshwar Yadav, residents of village- Govindpur, P.O.- Singhrawan, P.S.- Chauparan, District- Hazaribag. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.. PP 02 / 07.04.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Telaiya P. S. case no. 302 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 126(2), 127(2), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of the common intention of the co-accused persons and in criminal conspiracy with them, attempted to murder Abhas Mukherjee by assaulting him with iron rod. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence as is evident from the FIR of Telaiya P. S. case no. 304 of 2025 as the informant of the said case claims that at the same time of the occurrence as of this case, the petitioner committed offence of that case, in the house of the informant of that case. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused who not were named in the FIR, and without putting them on TIP, charge sheet had been submitted against them, have been admitted to bail by this court vide order dated 26.02.2026 passed in B.A. no. 691 of 2026. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 05.02.2026 , as mentioned in para 14 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing 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 allegation against the petitioner stands on different footing than that of the co-accused who has been admitted to bail, as the petitioner is named in the FIR and the victim has specifically stated in his statement that the petitioner assaulted him with iron rod, due to which, there was fracture in right parieto temporal bone with involvement of petrous part with hemo-tympanum. It is next submitted that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and his criminal antecedent, 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 as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, as also his criminal antecedent, 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 07.04.2026 Smita/-