[2026:JHHC:12680] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3563 of 2026 ------ Rajesh Baskhor @ Bablu Baskhor @ Rajesh Ram aged about 30 years, son of Late Jamuna Baskhor, resident of Village- Banksu Bigha, P.O. & P.S.- Vishnupath-Vishnupath, District- Gaya, Bihar. ... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 29-04-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 109 of 2025 arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No. 157 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2) of the B.N.S. Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merits by the co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 20.11.2025 in B.A. No.10034 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that the case was committed to the court of Sessions, but no witnesses have been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or witnesses of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the fact that prayer for regular bail of the of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 20.11.2025 in B.A. No.10034 of 2025 on merit. This court is of the considered view that spending more some more time in custody and commitment of case to the court of Sessions is not a fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner which has earlier been rejected on merits. Hence, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected for same reasons as mentioned in B.A. No.10034 of 2025 vide order dated 20.11.2025. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 29/04/2026 Amar/