2026:JHHC:25967 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7985 of 2026 Shyamlal Ganjhu, aged about 46 years, son of Chaman Ganjhu, resident of Village Simaratari P.O. and P.S. Pathalgadda, District Chatra … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocate --- 02/28th August 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 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 172/2026 arising out of Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits in B.A. No. 2814 of 2026 vide order dated 30.04.2026. The petitioner is in custody since 19.01.2026 and the charge has been framed on 14.07.2026, but no witness has been examined so far. There are altogether twelve charge-sheet witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that the wife of the informant was branded as witchcraft practitioner and her child was snatched away and assaulted and the child was put behind the tractor and the driver was asked to move backward pursuant to which the driver moved backward. The entire incident was witnesses by the eye-witnesses including the informant of the case. The learned counsel submits that the 2026:JHHC:25967 2 crucial witnesses are yet to be examined and therefore the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel also submits that the endeavour will be made to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses before the learned court, so that the trial itself is expedited. 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: 28.08.2026 Uploaded On: 29.08.2026 Mukul/-