( 2026:JHHC:7113 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2023 of 2026 Dhiraj Kumar Gupta @Dhiraj Kumar @Dheeraj Gupta aged about 22 years son of Late Anu Saw, resident of Bholanath Baseria, P.O. & P.S. Kenduadih, District Dhanbad. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradyot Chatterjee, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. -- 02/16.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2024 in connection with S.T. Case No. 26 of 2025 arising out of Patherdih P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 310(2), 311 of the B.N.S. 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act (Charge has been framed under Section 310(2), 311,317(3) of the B.N.S. and Section 27, 25(1-B(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act), pending in the court of District and Additional Sessions Judge, XI, at Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected twice by this court; firstly in B.A. No. 506 of 2025 vide order dated 24.01.2025 and secondly in B.A. No. 9421 of 2025, vide order dated 31.10.2025. He submits that the co-accused Gautam Dhiwar @ Gogo @ Baba @ Gautam Bangali has been granted bail by the same Bench, who has rejected the case of the petitioner in B.A. No. 7938 of 2025 and another co-accused namely Abhishek Kumar has been granted bail in B.A. No. 9207 of 2025 vide order dated 16.10.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner has been identified in TIP and there is also recovery from the possession of the petitioner and the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of the aforesaid co-accused who have been granted bail as there has been no recovery from them. ( 2026:JHHC:7113 ) 2 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2024 and 03 witnesses have been examined. However, he is not aware as to how many total witnesses have been examined. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation and the fact that bail application of the petitioner has been rejected twice earlier, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. However, the State is directed for prompt production of witnesses before the court. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicated this order to the Director, Prosecution and to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance. 9. Let this order be communicate to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 16.03.2026 Uploaded on:17.03.2026 Binit/