( 2026:JHHC:30072 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6884 of 2026 Manoj Jha @ Manoj Kumar Jha, aged about 48 years, son of Ganesh Jha, Resident of village Sarara, P.O. and P.S. Babubarhi, District Madhubani, State-Bihar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. PP. --- 07/07.10.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Counter affidavit filed by the State during the court proceeding is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 273 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 282 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2025. The charge was initially framed on 21.04.2026 and thereafter no witness was examined. He has further submitted that the learned court has recorded that discharge petition was filed after framing of charge which sounds absurd. 5. The learned counsel submits that the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn 1st time in B.A. No. 1686 of 2026 vide order dated 12.03.2026 and 2nd time rejected in B.A. No. 3144 of 2026 vide order dated 06.05.2026. He submits that considering the custody of the petitioner the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has numerous ( 2026:JHHC:30072 ) 2 criminal antecedents as is mentioned in the impugned order itself which are of similar nature. The learned counsel has submitted that the bail application was earlier rejected on merits. 7. The charge was framed on 21.04.2026 and after the order framing charge was set aside and the matter was remanded and fresh charge was framed only on 30.09.2026 and therefore there was no occasion for the prosecution to produce any evidence in the meantime and the date was fixed for production of witnesses on 03.10.2026 but he is not aware as to whether on 03.10.2026 any witness has been examined or not. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that on the date when the case was lastly taken by this court on 21.09.2026, the charge which was framed on 21.04.2026 was already set aside and the matter was remanded. He submits that there is allegation of fraud to the extent of Rs. 33,00,000/- of government money. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation and the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits and there was no question of production of witnesses as the charge initially framed on 21.04.2026 was set aside on an application filed by the petitioner and now a fresh charge has been framed only on 30.09.2026 and material witnesses are yet to be examined, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 10. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 07.10.2026 Uploaded on 09.10.2026 Binit/