( 2026:JHHC:4759 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11146 of 2025 Rakesh Vishwkarma, aged 37 years, S/o Sagar Vishwkarma, R/o Village- Fakiradih, P.O.- Ramkanda, P.S.- Ramkanda, Distt.- Garhwa (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Syed Tafazzul Sajid, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P. --- 03/18.02.2026 Heard Mr. Syed Tafazzul Sajid, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2025 in connection with Ramkanda P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025, registered under Sections 352, 351(2)(3), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act, now pending in the court of learned J.M., 1st Class, Garhwa. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. 5. The learned counsel submits that considering the period of custody of the petitioner, he may be enlarged on bail. Two co-accused persons, namely, Upendra Yadav and Jairam Yadav have already been enlarged on bail in B.A. No.9175 of 2025 vide order dated 08.10.2025 and in B.A.No.8350 of 2025 vide order dated 25.09.2025 respectively. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that there is recovery of arms from the possession of the petitioner and there are criminal antecedents. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts that there has been recovery of arms from the possession of the petitioner and that the petitioner has criminal antecedent, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2 8. So far as the bail of co-accused is concerned, it is apparent that bail was granted to them on the ground that there has been recovery of arms from the possession of the present petitioner, therefore, the bail of the co-accused does not help to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:18.02.2026 Jay/- Date of Uploading:18.02.2026