2026:JHHC:11279 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3096 of 2026 Md. Arif Nayyar @ Arya @ Arif Nayyar, S/O Shakil Nayyar … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Raj, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP --- 07/18.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2024 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 144 of 2024 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 150 of 2024, registered under Sections 448, 394, 302, 336 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier vide order dated 07.08.2025 in B.A. No. 2660 of 2025 and there has been subsequent development. He submits that the informant in the First Information Report has stated that the details of the articles which have been stolen could be given by her father who had gone to West Bengal, but during her cross-examination, the informant has stated that in TIP her father was not included. The learned counsel submits that the statement in the cross-examination demolishes the entire case of the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the matter relates to dacoity and murder and bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits. He also submits that the trial is going on. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials placed on record, it appears that two witnesses were examined as on 07th February, 2026. Considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 2026:JHHC:11279 2 merits and that the trial is on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:18.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:20.04.2026