2026:JHHC:12804 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3123 of 2026 Yashwant Ganjhu @ Yashwant Kumar, S/o Nandev Ganjhu, R/o Village Butkuiya, PO & PS Kunda, District Chatra … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kr. Choubey, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P. ----- Order No.03 Date: 30.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner has been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. There is no cogent material to connect the petitioner in the alleged offence. Co-accused Prem Ganjhu, Tetar Ganjhu and Rupesh Ganjhu have already been granted regular bail by the different Benches of this Court. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with the present case since 14.04.2025. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for bail and submits that the case of the aforesaid co-accused persons cannot be equated with that of the petitioner, as during the investigation, on the alleged confession of the petitioner, mobile phone of the deceased has been recovered from a place behind the petitioner’s house. Hence, the petitioner may not be given the 2026:JHHC:12804 2 privilege of regular bail. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that on the alleged confession of the petitioner, the mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from a place behind his house, this Court is of the view that the case of the aforesaid co- accused persons cannot be equated with that of the petitioner. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of regular bail. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 30.04.2026 AKT Uploaded on 01.05.2026