2026:JHHC:27749 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8459 of 2026 Ejaj Khan @ Ajaz Khan @ Azaz Khan, S/o Nafis Khan @ Nasif Khan @ Md. Nafis Khan, aged 31 years, R/o Baldihri, P.O. Kosiara, P.S. Haidernagar, District Palamau … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate : Mr. Kshama Kumari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP --- 02/15.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.04.2024 in connection with S.T. Case No.308/24 arising out of Haidernagar P.S. Case No.102/23 (GR No.998/24) u/s 304 (B), 34 IPC, charge sheet under Section 304 (B), 34 IPC, cognizance under Section 304 (B)/34 IPC, charge under Section 304 (B), 34 IPC alternative charge under Section 302/34 of IPC, now pending in the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge II, Palamau at Daltonganj. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier vide Annexure-1 in B.A. No.4562 of 2025 vide order dated 10.09.2025, on the ground that the bail application of the father of the deceased was rejected in earlier B.A. No. 6939 of 2024. He then refers to the rejection of bail of the father-in-law of the deceased and submits that it was wrongly submitted that 4 years minor son of the deceased had stated that the father-in-law had strangulated his mother. 4. The learned counsel submits that subsequently Nafis Khan has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4381 of 2026, vide order dated 26.05.2026 after recording that 2 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, while PW1 was declared hostile, PW2 has not stated about any disclosure made by the son of the deceased. 2026:JHHC:27749 2 5. The learned counsel has further submitted that altogether 5 witnesses have been examined, including the informant and other family members, out of eight prosecution witnesses, but they have not made any allegation against the petitioner. However, none of the witnesses were declared hostile, except PW1, who is not a family member. 6. The learned counsel has further submitted that against the father-in-law, there was specific allegation that he made demand of Rs.1,50,000/- and so far as present petitioner is concerned, there is no such specific allegation and there is general and omnibus allegation, and therefore, the case of the present petitioner is on a better footing than Nafis Khan. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that PW3 was examined in the month of February 2026, but his evidence was not placed while granting bail to the co-accused, namely Nafis Khan on 26.05.2026 and reference was only made to the deposition of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. He has further stated that PW3 was examined in the month of February 2026 and there is a specific allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner in his deposition, and he has further stated that he has stated in paragraph 13, that the son of the deceased had disclosed the allegation against the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, has submitted that the son is not a witness in the case and in the bail application of Nafis Khan, witness of PW3 was also enclosed but admittedly that was not referred to in the bail order dated 26.05.2026. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 10.09.2025, there is no scope for this Court to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and come to any finding. Further, the trial appears to be at fag end, inasmuch as 5 witnesses have already been examined and only 3 are remain to be examined, most of whom are official witnesses (one is doctor and two are police officials). In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge 2026:JHHC:27749 3 the petitioner on bail. 10. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. 11. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 12. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:15.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:17.09.2026