2026:JHHC:5902 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 477 of 2026 Nitesh Kerketta aged about 27 years, son of Late Mahadeo Oraon resident of Village 836/R Tiril, Kokar, Near Devi Mandap, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. PIN-834009, UID- 908254915716 … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunny Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate --- 05/27.02.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2025 in connection with Dhurwa (H) P.S. Case No. 255 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 said to have been pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it has been alleged in the First Information Report (F.I.R) that the arms were recovered from the possession of the petitioner in a bag, but the seizure list does not reflect this fact. He has also submitted that the procedure for seizure has also not been followed. Learned counsel has also submitted that one co-accused has been granted bail in B.A. No. 12070 of 2025 vide order dated 13.02.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedent and the prosecution sanction has already been received on 06.11.2025. 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution for sanction itself is defective and the petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also 2026:JHHC:5902 2 submitted that out of five witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the trial is at advanced stage and fire arms are alleged to have been seized from the possession of the petitioner who also has criminal antecedent, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. The co-accused who has been granted bail, neither had criminal antecedent nor there was any recovery from his possession. 8. The instant bail application is rejected. 9. Let a copy of this be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 27.02.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-27.02.2026