( 2026:JHHC:2528 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8743 of 2025 ------ Manjhi Munda, aged about 22 years, Son of Late Manay Munda, Resident of Vill-Badi, P.O.-Saiko, Dist.-Khunti, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Raj, Advocate : Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naween Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No:-06 Dated:-30-01-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.18 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.95 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 427, 452, 365, 380, 376 D, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.07.2025 in B.A. No.5863 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being member of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the common object of the assembly committed gang rape upon the victim lady after branding her a Daain and looted the articles from the house of the son-in-law of the victim lady, vandalizing his house, wrongfully restraining and wrongfully confining the victim after trespassing to the house of the son-in-law of the victim lady. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the case of the petitioner has been split up and the co-accused persons have faced trial in which four witnesses have been examined so far and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution including the involvement of the petitioner in the said occurrence. It is next submitted that in the cross- examination, the witnesses have stated that they are not eye witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that some of the accused persons have already released on bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court and the petitioner is also involved in two other cases being S.T. Case No.96 of 2021 involving the offences punishable under Section 326, 447, 397, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in which he has not been granted bail as yet and the S.T. Case No.206 of 2020 involving the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.12.2021 as is evident from para-09 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is a hardened criminal, as apart from this case, he was involved in two separate cases of committing murder as well as dacoity with attempt to cause death and there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner in this case; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail keeping in view his criminal antecedents. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and his criminal antecedents; the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 30/01/2026 Abhiraj/