2026:JHHC:25971 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7840 of 2026 Deepak Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years, Son of Ram Chandra Yadav, resident of village Khetko, Nayadih Tola, PO Nawadih, PS Petarwar, District Bokaro … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Mohua Palit, Advocate --- 02/28th August 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No. 38/2025 corresponding to S.T. No. 304/2025 for the offence registered under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 140 (2), 351(3), 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 147/148/149/339/340/321/364A/503/378 of IPC) and Section 25 (1- B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier in B.A. NO. 9696/2026 vide order dated 23.03.2026. The petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2025 and the 1st witness has been examined on 2nd February 2026. However, the petitioner is not aware as to when the charge was framed. There are as many as 27 witnesses and most of them are police persons. Till date, three witnesses have been examined. The impugned order has been passed on 17.06.2026 and the deposition of three witnesses have been annexed to the bail application, but the learned counsel is not aware as to whether any further witness has been examined or not. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the prayer for bail, has submitted that the petitioner was identified in TIP 2026:JHHC:25971 2 and the petitioner also has three criminal antecedents as mentioned in the bail application itself. Many important witnesses are yet to be examined and there is a likelihood that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence. The learned counsel also submits that the endeavour will be made to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the trial is going on; many important witnesses are yet to be examined; the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and the petitioner has also criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses before the learned court. 6. 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. 7. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after nine months. 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/-