2026:JHHC:4969 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11426 of 2025 Jitrai Oraon, aged about 30 years, Son of Bhairo Oraon, Resident of Vill.- Dumralla, P.O. Kharka and P.S. – Gumla, Dist. – Gumla. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl. P.P. Order No.03/Dated- 19.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.381 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gumla. 3. As per F.I.R., it is alleged that informant was assaulted and robbed by the accused persons and the petitioner fired a gunshot at the informant, causing injury during a planned confrontation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this is the second regular bail application of the petitioner and earlier his bail application being B.A. No.2463 of 2025 vide order dated 27.03.2025 was rejected on merits by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 30.09.2024. Charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and out of 10 charge-sheeted witnesses, only 7 charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined in this case. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail. 2026:JHHC:4969 Page | 2 5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground for entertaining the second bail application which is fit to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of bail. 6. It appears that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for causing gunshot injury to the informant. It further transpires that the trial has commenced and out of 10 charge- sheeted witnesses, only 7 charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined. Informant, I.O. and Doctor have remained to be examined and trial is likely to be concluded very soon. Therefore, in the ends of justice, in the interest of smooth trial of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which stands rejected. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 19th February, 2026 Sachin/