Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4977 (JHR)

PRABHUNATH SINGH ALIAS PRABHU SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./2889/2026 · 2026-04-09

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:10178 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2889 of 2026 Prabhunath Singh @ Prabhu Singh, son of late Munshi Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP --- 02/09.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2024 in connection with Deori P.S. Case No.64 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. No.17/2025, registered under Sections 103(1)/238 of the B.N.S and charge has been framed in this case on 27.01.2025 under Section 103 (1)/238 of BNS, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Giridih, Jharkhand. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had moved earlier before this Court in B.A. No. 2357 of 2025 and the bail application was rejected vide order dated 25.03.2025. He has submitted that as per the impugned order dated 12.12.2025, 6 out of 12 witnesses were examined, and on instruction, he said that further one witness has been examined. 4. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution is not promptly producing the witnesses before the court and the petitioner is aged about 76 years. 5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the State shall ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merit earlier by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the trial is in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are 2026:JHHC:10178 2 promptly produced before the court so that the trial is taken to a logical end. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:09.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:09.04.2026