2026:JHHC:11458 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2304 of 2026 Sandeep Singh @ Sandeep Kumar, son of Hari Singh @ Horil Singh @ Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, APP --- 05/20.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2025 in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.40/2025, registered under Sections 137 (2), 96, 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 (section 103 (1), 238 ka of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 added vide order dated 22.08.2025, now pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Sahibganj. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 10.04.2026 wherein it was submitted that although it is alleged that on the confessional statement of the petitioner, the footwear of the victim was recovered but no seizure list was prepared. 4. The learned counsel for the State has filed a supplementary counter affidavit, which is taken on record. The learned counsel submits that a seizure list was prepared with respect to the footwear of the victim and the same already been brought on record vide Annexure – A. A reference has been made to paragraph 67 of the case diary. As per the counter affidavit, the petitioner confessed before the 2026:JHHC:11458 2 police and accepted his guilt. Further, the petitioner disclosed that he made several time physical relations with the victim and thereafter she becomes pregnant. The petitioner did not want to marry the victim. After that the petitioner tried to give medicine for abortion but she was ready. Then the petitioner made plan with friend Azad Singh to kill the victim and threw the dead body into the river Ganga. On 08.04.2025, according to the plan, the petitioner committed her murder and dead body was thrown in the Ganga River, which is mentioned in paragraph 65 of the case diary. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation against the petitioner and that the footwear of the victim was recovered and seizure was also made of the footwear in present of witnesses, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:20.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:21.04.2026