( 2026:JHHC:11322 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 631 of 2026 Jagarnath Saw @ Shampoo @ Jagarnath Kumar son of Sri Bhuneshwar Saw … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP --- 06/18.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 85 of 2024, S.T. Case No. 31 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 103(1)/238/85/3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and charge sheet has been submitted under Section 108/85 of BNS, 2023 and charge has been framed under Section 108/85/80 of BNS, 2023 and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned ADJ-II, Latehar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. No. 10765 of 2024 vide order dated 11.03.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till now 5 out of 8 witnesses have been examined and one of the witnesses has turned hostile. The charge was framed as back as on 07.05.2023. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the husband and the death occurred in the matrimonial home of the victim within seven years of her marriage. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2024 and therefore the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that apparently only three witnesses are yet to be examined and most of them are official witnesses. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and the trial is in progress, this court is not inclined to ( 2026:JHHC:11322 ) 2 enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining three witnesses are promptly produced before the court for examination. 7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director Prosecution and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance. 8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.04.2026 Uploaded on: 20.04.2026 Binit/