[2026:JHHC:18931] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4031 of 2026 ------ Uday Bhanu Pratap Yadav, age about 36 years, Son of Indranath Yadav, Resident of Village- Saleya, P.O. & P.S.- Bardiha, District- Garhwa .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.03 Dated-29-06-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bardiha P.S. Case No.54 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. No.12 of 2026 registered under Section 115 (2), 126 (2), 109, 117 (2) and 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the self-same prayer as earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in B.A. No.11524 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile two of the witnesses have been examined who are both the victims and one of whom is the informant, has also been examined and they have supported the case of the prosecution. Further, they have stated that the co-accused, who has since been admitted to bail, is threatening to kill the informant unless a compromise takes place. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.09.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the threatening extended by the co-accused, who has since been admitted to bail and the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner which has been corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses examined during the trial so far, there is no justifiable reason to renew the prayer for bail of the petitioner which has already been rejected on merit vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in B.A. No.11524 of 2025. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the threatening extended by the co-accused, who has since been admitted to bail, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to review the prayer for bail of the petitioner which has already been rejected on merit vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in B.A. No.11524 of 2025. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-29.06.2026-Animesh/