( 2026:JHHC:16480 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4221 of 2026 Jiwan Murmu @ Jivan Murmu son of late Bhuju Murmu … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. --- 02/09.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Borio P.S. Case No. 276 of 2015, S.T. No. 105 of 2016(s) for the offences registered under Sections 147,148,149, 302 of IPC and charge has been framed under Sections 148,302/149 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2025 and he had gone out to earn his livelihood and when he came back, he surrendered. He has also submitted that the co-accused persons who faced the trial have been convicted by the trial court but have been enlarged on bail by the appellate court. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner was an absconder and has been arrested on the basis of permanent warrant of arrest and conviction of the co-accused by the trial court and grant of bail by the appellate court has nothing to do with the present case. As per the bail application, out of 08 charge sheeted witnesses, 02 have already been examined. 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the last couple of dates , witnesses are not being produced by the prosecution. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner was declared absconder and has been ( 2026:JHHC:16480 ) 2 arrested on the basis of permanent warrant of arrest and the trial is going on, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court so that the trial of the petitioner is taken to a logical end. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.06.2026 Uploaded on 10.06.2026 Binit/