( 2026:JHHC:13280 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2871 of 2026 ------ Anima Munda, aged about 25 years, d/o Suresh Pahan, r/o Village-Jarga Tetar Toli, Bagiabera, P.O.-Angara, P.S.-Angara, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanish R. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 05.05.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. No. 661 of 2025 arising out of Angara P.S. Case No.46 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 148/325/302/201/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail was rejected twice vide orders dated 05.12.2025 and 28.11.2024 in B.A. No. 10049 of 2025 and B.A. No. 9825 of 2024 respectively. It is next submitted that the only fresh ground is that the co-accused person has been granted bail and the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner which has already been rejected twice on merit by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the fact that prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected twice on merit, this Court is of the considered view that the mere fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the orders dated 05.12.2025 and 28.11.2024 in B.A. No. 10049 of 2025 and B.A. No. 9825 of 2024 respectively. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 05.05.2026 Gunjan-