2026:JHHC:18449 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5565 of 2026 Md. Faiyaz Ansari @ Md. Fayaz Ansari, aged about 29 years … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar thakur, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, Addl.P.P. --- 02/24.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2025 in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024, S.T. Case No. 15 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 376 & 506 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned A.D.J. II, Chatra. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he happens to be the brother-in- law i.e. brother of the husband of the victim. He has further submitted that there was some family dispute which has taken in the state of false prosecution of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the charge has been framed on 15.04.2026 but thereafter there has been three dates but the State is not producing the witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. However, he has also submitted that there can be no excuse for non-production of witnesses. To which the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2025. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that as per the impugned order the victim has supported the allegation in 2026:JHHC:18449 2 statement recorded under section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering direct allegation against the petitioner and the trial is in progress, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned trial court. 7. It is reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are only three charge sheeted witnesses in this case. 8. 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. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.06.2026 Uploaded on: 25.06.2026 MM