2026:JHHC:25232 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7834 of 2026 Arvind Kullu, aged about 30 years, S/o Peeter Kullu, Resident of Village: Karichuwan Gara, Post Office & Police Station: Kamdara, District: Gumla (Jharkhand) … … 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-State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate --- 04/20.08.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.04.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 170 of 2025 arising out of Kamdara P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025 (G.R. Case No. 405 of 2025), for the alleged offence registered under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge has been framed on 26.08.2025 for alleged offence under Section 103(1) of BNS. Learned counsel has further submitted that the informant is not the eye witness to the occurrence and the petitioner has been made accused on the basis of the statements made by the co- villagers. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is a named accused in the First Information Report. He has further submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner in the first information report that he killed the parents of the informant, who were his own uncle and aunt, by attacking them with Tangi blow, which was witnessed by two daughters of the deceased. 2026:JHHC:25232 2 5. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an observation may be made so that the trial may be concluded expeditiously. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. The instant bail application is hereby rejected. 8. However, there can be no doubt that the prosecution is required to produce the witness promptly before the court. 9. The trial is going on and as per the impugned order dated 14.07.2026, 06 charge-sheet witnesses out of a total of 16 witnesses have already been examined. 10. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are produced promptly before the court. 11. Learned counsel for the State is also directed to seek instructions and forward the FSL report, if any, to the concerned court. 12. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and FSL Ranchi, to ensure compliance. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 20.08.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-24.08.2026