2026:JHHC:7778 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2221 of 2026 Bijay Sikary @ Vijay Sikary @ Bijay Sikari, aged about 32 years, son of late Shital Shikary, Resident of Village – Bhupati Palli, P.O. & P.S. – Bhagmundi, District – Purulia, West Bengal. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Dash, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Advocate --- 05/20.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No.453/2025 arising out of Musabani P.S. Case No.61/2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.32/2023 (S), registered under Sections 302/201/34 of IPC, now pending in the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – I, Ghatshila. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R and there is direct allegation, but neither the informant is an eye witness nor there is any eye witness to the occurrence. It has been alleged that the father of the informant has been beaten to death by the petitioner and other accused persons and they are threatening the petitioner. He has submitted that there is a delay of lodging the case by 7 days. 4. He has further referred to Annexure – 2 of the bail application and submitted that in the deposition of the informant in Sessions Trial No.136 of 2023 being faced by the co-accused, the informant has stated that on the date and time of occurrence he was in the jungle. He submits that the petitioner is now facing the trial in the split-up record. 5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the evidence of the witness in the Sessions Trial No.136 of 2023 is of no relevance as the petitioner is not facing the said trial. 2026:JHHC:7778 2 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner is the named accused and there is direct allegation against the petitioner and apart from this, this Court is of the view that any deposition of the informant in the other connected trial cannot taken into consideration to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:20.03.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:20.03.2026