2026:JHHC:14336 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4025 of 2026 ------ Suneshwar Oraon aged about 48 years, S/o Late Kharidan Oraon, R/o Village Salwe P.O. Kotam, P.S. Garu, District – Latehar, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mandeo Bhagat, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl. P.P ------ Order No.2 Dated-12-05-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Garu P.S. Case No.30 of 2025, corresponding to S.T. Case No.258 of 2025, registered under Section 109 of BNS, u/s 3/4 of Prevention of Witch Craft Act and u/s 25(1-B) (a)/26/27 of Arms Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 passed in B.A. No.10048 of 2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fresh ground is that so far as four witnesses have been examined during the trial and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since there is contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses, hence the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that four witnesses examined during the trial, have supported the case of the prosecution, hence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail, keeping in view of the overwhelming evidence that has come against him. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, the fact that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected and the four witnesses, who have been examined during the trial, all have supported the case of the prosecution showing direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-12.05.2026-R. Kumar/ Uploaded on 14.05.2026