2026:JHHC:384 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8974 of 2025 Arif Chudifarosh, son of Md. Sarwar Siddiqui, resident of village Darji Mohalla, P.O. & P.S.- Bishrampur, District- Palamau … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. … Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ---- 06/08.01.2026 The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302/307/326/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier granted regular bail by this Court in connection with present case i.e., Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 80 of 2015 (G.R. No. 2398 of 2015) vide order dated 08.05.2017 passed in B.A. No. 1638 of 2017. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of sessions. Since, the petitioner subsequently could not appear before the concerned trial court, his bail bond was cancelled by the said court vide order dated 04.02.2022. He then appeared before the concerned trial court and was granted bail vide order dated 24.02.2023. The petitioner again could not appear before the trial court as a result of which, his bail bond was further cancelled by the said court vide order dated 05.10.2023. Thereafter, he was arrested in execution of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued by the trial court on 13.07.2024 and was taken on remand in the present case on 18.11.2024 and since then he is in judicial custody. 3. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has been 2026:JHHC:384 - 2 - implicated in 10 other criminal cases, the details of which have been given in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 24.12.2025, however out of the said cases, he has already been acquitted in two cases and has been granted regular bail in rest eight cases. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that so far as the other co-accused persons of this case are concerned, they have already been enlarged on regular bail by different Benches of this Court. The petitioner undertakes that he shall not misuse the privilege of regular bail, hence he may be released on bail. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for regular bail. 6. On perusal of the report dated 09.10.2025 submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj, it appears that though the charge against the accused persons including the petitioner was framed on 29.03.2025, however no chargesheet witness out of 15 has been examined till submission of the report. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the statement made in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 24.12.2025 that out of 10 other criminal cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted in two cases and has been enlarged on bail in rest eight cases and that no chargesheet witness has been examined till submission of the report dated 09.10.2025, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the 2026:JHHC:384 - 3 - satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2017 arising out of Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 80 of 2015, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall remain present before the concerned trial court on each and every date, unless his physical appearance for a particular date is specifically exempted by the order of the said court, failing which the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) January 08, 2026 Ritesh Uploaded on 09.01.2026