[2026:JHHC:11951 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. no. 3373 of 2026 Anil Kumar @ Anil Yadav, aged about 36 years, son of Shankar Yadav, resident of Patratu Basti, near Shiv Mandir, P.O. & P.S.- Patratu, Dist.- Ramgarh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Ptathk , Addl. PP 02 / 23.04.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.03 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 190/ 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 332(a)/109/103(1)/61(2)/111(2)(b) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 27 of Arms Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common objection of the assembly and in criminal conspiracy with each other has committed the murder of Bharat Pandey @ Bharat Singh and Deepak Saw @ Dulla, by firing upon them. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has not been put on T.I. Parade, though as per the FIR, the paternal aunt of Sanoj Singh has seen the assailants going away from the place of occurrence; after the occurrence. It is next submitted that the charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of surmises and presumptions. It is then submitted that the deceased was having several criminal antecedents including murder of Amit Buxi and Roushan Saw. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted that no complaint or FIR has been registered for the alleged threatening given by the Vikas Tiwary and Nishi Pandey to the deceased and their family members. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.11.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the bail application. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. It is next submitted that the co-accused with similar allegations has already been admitted on bail by this court vide order dated 22.04.2026 passed in B.A. no. 3238 of 2026 hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. Considering submissions of learned counsels and the facts as stated above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the court below is directed to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.03 of 2025 with the condition that the petitioner will not annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the in any manner during trial of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish mobile phone number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change the mobile phone number during the trial of the case. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 23.04.2026 Smita/-