2026:JHHC:20569 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6181 of 2026 Imran Ansari, Son of Md. Kurban Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. --- 05/10.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.04.2025 in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 32/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 555 of 2025 (S.T. Case No. 266 of 2025), registered under Sections 308(4), 308(5), 61(2) and 317(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, section 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected twice; once in B.A. No. 8093 of 2025 vide order dated 18.09.2025 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and thereafter, in B.A. No. 83 of 2026 vide order dated 23.03.2026. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there are altogether six accused persons and except the petitioner, all other accused have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court including the Bench which has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner in B.A. No. 8093 of 2025. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there are as many as 6 criminal antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner and there is recovery of arms from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that most of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail had submitted that there was no recovery of arms from them and some 2026:JHHC:20569 2 other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, had submitted that the arms had been planted. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12.04.2025 and charge was framed on 12.05.2026, but no witness has turned up so far. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected twice earlier on merits, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. However, there can be no excuse for non-production of witnesses before the learned court. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:10.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:11.07.2026