2026:JHHC:22459 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5723 of 2026 Bitu Rautiya, son of Sunu Rautiy … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, APP For the Informant : Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocate --- 04/29.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2026 in connection with S.T. Case No.105/2026 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.06/2026, registered under Sections 103 (1), 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and under Sections ¾ of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Gumla. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2026 and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, but his name has transpired from an eye witness namely Kinwa Rautiya and it is alleged that on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, the ashes of blood stained clothes were seized. The learned counsel submits that the ashes by itself cannot link the petitioner to alleged offence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after a few days, one eye witness appeared namely Kinwa Rautiya, who in his statement said that during the night of the occurrence, he had seen the petitioner near the bushes where the dead body of the deceased was lying. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co- accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court in B.A. No. 5228 of 2026 vide order dated 22.06.2026. 2026:JHHC:22459 2 6. The learned counsel for the informant and the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the wife of the petitioner was not conceiving, and therefore, it was alleged that the deceased was a daain and ultimately, she was killed by stone by terming her as daain. 8. The learned counsel has submitted that the name of the petitioner has not only transpired in the statement of Kinwa Rautiya, who stated that the petitioner was seen near bushes where the dead body of Shanti Devi was lying, but the petitioner had also confessed that after committing murder, he burnt the blood stained clothes and thrown the same and the ashes were recovered. 9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the case is of brutal murder of a lady, who died by terming her as daain and materials have been collected against the petitioner during investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is hereby rejected. 10. So far as the co-accused, who have been granted bail in B.A. No.5228 of 2026 namely Baleshwar Rautiya and others are concerned, the bail order reveals that this Court has taken into consideration that on the basis of the confessional statement of this petitioner, recovery was made. The case of this petitioner stands on a different footing as that of the co-accused, who has been granted bail. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:29.07.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:31.07.2026