( 2026:JHHC:11589 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11254 of 2025 ------ Subhan Ansari, aged about 52 years, Son of Habib Ansari, Resident of Kadir Nagar, Nawada, P.S.-Vishnugarh, P.O.-Vishnugarh, District-Hazaribagh/Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.04 Dated- 20-04-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.38 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No.304 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 140(2), 351(3) and 303(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being member of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the common object of the assembly abducted the Munshi of the informant namely Dharmendra Gupta and demanded ransom from the contractor. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that out of 9 criminal antecedents of the petitioner mentioned by the police, in two of the cases, Bermo Case No.45 of 2014 and Vishnugarh P.S. Case No.15 of 2017, the petitioner has been acquitted, but he is still facing trial in 7 other cases. It is next submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted in this case. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant and witnesses of the case during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 02.06.2025 as is evident from para-01 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner has been identified by the victim in the T.I.P. to be a person who was wielding a pistol on the date of occurrence and in view of the direct allegation against the petitioner and also his criminal antecedents, 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 his criminal antecedents, 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 at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 20/04/2026 Abhiraj/