2026:JHHC:7584 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2194 of 2026 Saddam Khan @ S. Khan, aged about 29 years, son of Late Ali Ahmad Khan @ Driver, Resident of H-Road, Muslim Basti, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.- Adityapur, District- Seraikella Kharsawan. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Sumeet Anand, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP --- 05/19.03.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.01.2023 in connection with S.T. Case No. 48 of 2023 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 277 of 2022, registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I at Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn. However, later on in B.A. No. 11008 of 2024, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merits vide order dated 22.09.2025. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.01.2023 and still the trial has not concluded. He also submits that two official witnesses are only remaining to be examined. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the co-accused namely, Kadim Khan, who is similarly situated as that of the petitioner, has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 6294 of 2024. 5. However, from the perusal of the order granting bail to the co- accused Kadim Khan, it appears that it was submitted in the said case that the main witness is wife, before whom dying declaration was given by the deceased and she had taken the name of Saddam Khan 2026:JHHC:7584 2 who is the present petitioner before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the informant has been examined, who is the wife of the deceased and she has made general allegation against all the co-accused and there is no likelihood of conviction of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the trial can be expedited. He submits that the petitioner has as many as 24 criminal cases against him and the case of the petitioner was already rejected on merits. He also submits that the rejection order of the prayer for bail of the present petitioner was not placed before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail to the co-accused. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has 24 criminal antecedents and his bail application was rejected on merits earlier and also the fact that only two remaining witnesses are to be examined who are said to be the official witnesses, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 9. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the next date in the trial before the learned court is 28.03.2026. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State submits that the State shall ensure production of witnesses. 11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the State is directed to promptly produce the witnesses before the learned court. 12. Learned counsel for the State is directed to immediately communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district 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:19.03.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:20.03.2026