( 2026:JHHC:11271) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1944 of 2026 Irfan Ansari @ Kallu @ Imtiyaz Aonsar @ Kalu, aged about 40 years, son of Rahmtulla Ansari @ Md. Rahmatullah … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. --- 08/18.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2024 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 657 of 2024 arising out of Bankmore (Bhuli O.P.) P.S. Case No. 179 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2239 of 2024, registered under Section 103(1) & 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad. 3. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier in B.A. No. 1202 of 2025 vide order dated 13.02.2025 after recording that during course of investigation the petitioner was apprehended and, on his confession, the remaining body of the deceased was recovered. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2024 and the charge was framed on 31.03.2025, still the trial has not been concluded. He submits that out of 21 charge sheeted witnesses, only 4 have been examined. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and he may not be enlarged on bail, however, the trial can be expedited. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and that there is serious allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. ( 2026:JHHC:11271) 2 6. However, so far as the remaining witnesses are concerned, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses before the learned Court, so that the trial is taken to a logical end. 7. 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 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 Vedanti Date of Uploading: 20.04.2026