2026:JHHC:18861 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2842 of 2026 Datebabu Hansda @ Dey Babu Hansda, aged about 22 years, Son of Late Bharat Hansda … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate --- 04/29.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2023 in connection with G.R. No. 477 of 2023 (S.T. Case No. 02 of 2024) arising out of Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 47 of 2023, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 341, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on account of his custody as the remaining witnesses were not being produced before the Court. He has further submitted that after this Court called for a report from the concerned court vide order dated 10.06.2026, a number of witnesses have been examined, but in the counter affidavit the state has not pointed out as to what evidence has come against the petitioner. He has also submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that even today witness has been examined and only investigating officer and one more witness is required to be examined. The next date in the trial is on 07.07.2026 and the state shall produce witness on that day also. 2026:JHHC:18861 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering seriousness of allegation made against the petitioner and the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits earlier in B.A. No. 3220 of 2024 vide order dated 30.08.2024 and the trial has substantially progressed, and the state has also undertaken to produce the remaining witness, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. The instant bail application is hereby rejected. 7. The state is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court so that the trial is concluded at the earliest. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 29.06.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-01.07.2026