2026:JHHC:24235 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7504 of 2026 Ram Pratap Ram @ Ram Pratap Kumar, aged about 29 years, Son of Sitaram Bhuiya, Resident of village-Jogikhura P.O. & P.S- Ranka, District- Garhwa … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Bandana Sinha, Advocate --- 02/13th August 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No. 110 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 1274/2025 for the offence registered under Section 103(1) o BNS and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2025. The charge has been framed on 30.11.2025 for alleged offence under Section 103(1) o BNS and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, but the trial has not yet been concluded. The informant of the case, who has already been examined before the learned court, has turned hostile. However, the deposition is not place on record. 3. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of seven witnesses, two have been examined so far. He submits that considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. The bail application of the co-accused, namely, Om 2026:JHHC:24235 2 Prakash Ram @ Om Prakash Kumar has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 1843 of 2026 vide order dated 13.03.2026. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of offence, which is a social crime, and the fact that the trial is going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses before the learned court. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 13.08.2026 Uploaded On: 13.08.2026 Mukul/-