2026:JHHC:17724 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5068 of 2026 Gokul Mahli, S/o Keshwar Mahli … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Altamash Khan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP --- 02/18.06.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 85 of 2023 arising out of Senha P.S. Case No. 114 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 105 of 2023, registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim who died in her matrimonial home by unnatural death. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware about the date of marriage of the petitioner and the victim. He submits that the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.02.2025 in B.A. No. 10225 of 2024. Thereafter, another bail application was filed being B.A. (Filing) No. 21156 of 2025 which was dismissed for default on account of non-removal of defects in terms of order dated 17.04.2026. The learned counsel submits that the order dated 17.04.2026 was passed by this Bench itself and instead of filing any application for restoration of the said bail application, a fresh bail application has been filed, although the petitioner ought to have filed restoration application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 6. The impugned order is dated 06.09.2024 and upon a query of 2026:JHHC:17724 2 this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only two witnesses are remaining to be examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that P.W. 5 has been declared hostile. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware about the next date in the trial. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail. 9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that bail application of the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn earlier by a Bench of this Court which is not available and the trial is at the fag end, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 10. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 11. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:18.06.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:20.06.2026