( 2026:JHHC:10698 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 940 of 2026 ------ Abhishek Kumar Mahto @ Abhishek Mahto, aged about 22 years, Son of Somnath Mahto, Resident of Village-Jhiri, P.O.-Kamre, P.S.- Ratu, District-Ranchi .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-15-04-2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit. Keep the same in the record. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 276 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) of the B.N.S. and Section 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed robbery and looted valuable articles from the house of the informant. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that petitioner is also involved in two other cases. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.08.2025 as is evident from para-01 of the instant bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner, as well as his criminal antecedent, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner and his criminal antecedents as well as chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the abovenamed petitioner to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 15.04.2026 Nandini/