2026:JHHC:8218 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 938 of 2026 Jiya Begam @ Jiya Begum, (aged about 34 years), Wife of –Md. Firoz Ansari, Resident of Kund Mohalla, Kanni Ram Chowk, Ward No. 7, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate --- 05/24.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.04.2024 in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 233 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 321 of 2024, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Latehar. 3. During the course of hearing, it transpires that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected thrice earlier in B.A. No. 6446 of 2024 vide order dated 20.09.2024, B.A. No. 10452 of 2024 vide order dated 24.01.2025 and in B.A. No. 5362 of 2025 vide order dated 04.07.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that four co- accused have been enlarged on bail in B.A. No. 5650 of 2025 vide order dated 25.07.2025, B.A. No.7928 of 2025 vide order dated 16.09.2025, B.A. No. 6559 of 2024 with B.A. No. 6700 of 2024 vide order dated 20.09.2024 and in B.A. No. 9619 of 2025 vide order dated 04.11.2025. 2026:JHHC:8218 2 5. During the course of hearing, it also transpires that out of six prosecution witnesses, four prosecution witnesses have been examined and the last witness has been examined on 21.02.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that next date in the trial court is 10.04.2026. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that apparently the official witnesses/informant are required to be examined. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits thrice earlier and the trial is at the advance stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 10. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already informed this Court that the next date in the trial court is 10.04.2026. 12. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 24.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-25.03.2026