2026:JHHC:21930 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6576 of 2026 Deepak Topno, son of Manual Topno … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Achinto Sen, APP --- 02/24.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2024 in connection with Anandpur P.S. Case No.23/2024 in S.T. Case No.148/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.29 of 2025, charged under Section 118 (2), 109 (1), 331 (7), 333, ¾ of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, charge framed under Sections 333, 331 (7), 118 (2), 109 (1) read with Section 3 (5) of B.N.S. 2023 and 03 & 04 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II – cum – Special Judge POCSO Act West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2024. As per the F.I.R, although it is alleged that the petitioner along with one Anil Bhuiyan had entered the house of the victim, but the actual assault was made by Anil Bhuiyan. The petitioner appears to be close relative of the victim. He submits that as per the F.I.R. itself, it is alleged that the petitioner stated that the victim is daain and because of her, the daughter of the petitioner had died. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that on account of the incident of the death of the daughter of the petitioner, the victim was termed as daain and the entire incident had taken place and the tangi blow was given on the head of the victim, which got stuck inside her head itself, but some 2026:JHHC:21930 2 how the victim survived. He submits that the trial is at advanced stage. 5. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that altogether 3 witnesses were examined, but they were not cross-examined by the defence and they have now been recalled for cross-examination. It is further submitted that there are altogether 6 charge sheeted witnesses. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the trial is in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected at this stage. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.07.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:25.07.2026