2026:JHHC:4473 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10537 of 2025 Anita Devi, aged about 23 years, wife of Gulab Maraiya, resident of Village Pakuriya, P.O. Pakuriya, P.S. Dumka (M), District Dumka, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Advocate --- 03/17.02.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 165 of 2025 arising out of Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 117(4) & 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the FIR being the wife of Gulab Maraiya, but there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2025 and the petitioner is a mother of 6 years old child, so she may be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the charges against the petitioner are very serious in nature and there is direct allegation against the petitioner who was directly involved in commission of the offence. He has also stated that trial has commenced and the State shall produce witnesses promptly before the court. 2026:JHHC:4473 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission and the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner who is named in the FIR with specific allegations, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses in the court. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the concerned authority to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 17.02.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-17.02.2026