[2026:JHHC:5939] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11818 of 2025 ------ Kalam Ansari, aged about 32 years Son of Mumtaj Ansari, R/oVillage Ward No.12, Korwadih, P.O. – Garhwa, P.S.- Garhwa Nagar, District- Garhwa .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Divyansh Krishna, Advocate Mr. Udisha Rana, Advocate Mr. Rrishi Pallava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.03 Dated- 27-02-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Garhwa Nagar P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No.321 of 2025 (S.T. No.112 of 2025) registered under Section 87 and 82 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.07.2025 passed in B.A. No.5398 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.02.2025. 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 keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of abducting the wife of the informant, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is further submitted that the victim lady has also supported the case of the prosecution in her statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail, only because he has remained in custody for some more time in the meanwhile. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the detailed order dated 03.07.2025 passed in B.A. No.5398 of 2025. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated- 27.02.2026-Animesh/