[2026:JHHC:26903 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8273 of 2026 Rajeshwar Baitha, aged about 40 years, son of Ramprasad Baitha, resident of village- Putur P.O.- Katharkala, P.S. -Dhurki, Dist. -Garhwa. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Apurv Krishna, Adv. Mr. Gopal K. Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. PP 02 / 07.09.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T Case No-194/2025 arising out of Dhurki P.S. Case No. 19/2025 instituted under Section 115(2), 103(1), 324(4), 351(3) & 3(5)of BNS, 2023 and 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as his earlier bail application was rejected vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in B.A. No. 3713 of 2025. It is next submitted that the fresh ground for admitting the petitioner on regular bail is that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner be admitted to regular bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that since the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected in view of the serious and direct allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of the deceased by assaulting him with an axe; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding as well as tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail and the ground that the petitioner has spent in custody for some more time, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a sufficient ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 07.09.2026 Smita/-