2026:JHHC:29667 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9000 of 2026 Jitendra Ravi @ Jitendra Ram, S/o Budhan Mochi, aged about 30 years, R/o Vill-Rewaratu, P.O. Lesliganj Sub Post Office, P.S. Lesliganj, District-Palamu, Jharkhand-822118. … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate --- 05/05.10.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2024 in connection with S.T. Case No.112 of 2025 arising out of Lesliganj P.S. Case No.114 of 2024, registered under Sections 103(1), 238(b) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Palamu. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2024. The charge was framed on 05.05.2025. The petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the informant has already been examined before the learned court. She submits that though the informant has not turned hostile, but he has not fully supported the prosecution case. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits on 06.10.2025 in B.A. No. 3580 of 2025. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and as per the report received from the learned court concerned, out of 09 charge-sheet witnesses, 07 witnesses, including the informant and investigating officer of the case, have already been 2026:JHHC:29667 2 examined and two doctors are only remaining to be examined. The case has been fixed today, that is on 05.10.2026, for evidence of the doctors. However, the learned counsels are not aware as to whether the doctors have appeared before the learned court or not. 6. Considering the fact that the trial is at the fag end and the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 8. The State is also directed to ensure that the FSL report is forwarded to the learned court concerned at the earliest. 9. If the remaining witnesses are not examined or the FSL report is not forwarded, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 06 months. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution, Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the FSL, Ranchi to ensure compliance. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:05.10.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:06.10.2026