( 2026:JHHC:11787 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11794 of 2025 ------ Vikash Tiwary @ Vikash Kumar Tiwari, aged about 46 years, son of Jitendra Tiwari, resident of Daiguttu Road No.-11, Azadnagar, near Jhanda Singh Middle School, P.O. & P.S.-Mango, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.04 Dated- 21-04-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No.230 of 2024 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No.43 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 326, 379, 307 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B) (a), 27 of Arms Act. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.03.2025 in B.A. No.312 of 2025 and rejected vide order dated 12.09.2024 in B.A. No.7308 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, two witnesses have been examined so far and while PW-1 is the eye witness of the occurrence and has categorically stated that the petitioner fired upon the victim Shankar Singh after assaulting him with hockey stick causing injury on his head, but the bullets did not hit Shankar Singh and there is further evidence against the petitioner is that the petitioner also attempted to murder Anil Sao by assaulting him with the butt of the pistol on his head causing bleeding injury on his head. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial 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 Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, which has been corroborated by the PW- 1, who is the eye witness of the case, 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 serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the evidence that has already come against him, as also the chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 21/04/2026 Abhiraj/