( 2026:JHHC:29600 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8971 of 2026 Abu Talib aged about 29 years, S/o Md. Kalam, R/o Jario, P.O. and P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP --- 03/01.10.2026 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 S.T. No. 91 of 2026, arising out of Ramgarh Cyber P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 112(2) (b), 111(4), 318(4), 316(2), 351(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. No. 4344 of 2026 vide order dated 07.07.2026. He submits that considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail. The petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2026 and charge has been framed on 12.06.2026 and 01 witness has been examined so far, who is the informant of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by a detailed order considering the materials collected against the petitioner during investigation. The petitioner happens to be the close relative of the informant and three sisters-in-law and material witnesses are yet to be examined before the court and therefore the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits and material witnesses who are close relatives of the petitioner are yet to be examined before the learned ( 2026:JHHC:29600 ) 2 court, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court so that the trial is taken to a logical end. 7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and also to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.10.2026 Uploaded on 01.10.2026 Binit/