2026:JHHC:26307 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7234 of 2026 Mangal Munda, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Purandar Munda, resident of Gabhreya, Nawadih, PO+PS- Dasamfall, Dist.Ranchi (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Advocate --- 06/1st September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 71/2024 arising out of Dasafall P.S. Case No. 19/2023, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 & 4 of the Witchcraft Act, pending in the Court of learned A.J.C.-XIII, Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2023; charge was framed as back as on 17.02.2024 and the last witness was examined only on 30.10.2025. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits in B.A. No. 7546/2024 vide order dated 28.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have been caused the death and murder of Mungli Devi by assaulting her with sharp cutting weapon (Dauli & Basila) after addressing the deceased to be a witch, who was said to have caused harm to grand-daughters of the petitioner by playing black magic upon them. The murder weapon was recovered on the confessional statement of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 2026:JHHC:26307 2 4. The stage of the case has been received from the concerned court, which reveals that out of five charge-sheet witnesses, 3 have already been examined and two witnesses including the I.O. remain to be examined as on 14.08.2026. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner, the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and that the trial appears to be at the fag end, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the next date in the trial is 17th September 2026. 7. In such circumstances, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses before the learned court. 8. 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. 9. However, it is observed that if the remaining witnesses are not produced by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after four months. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.09.2026 Uploaded On: 01.09.2026 Mukul/-