2026:JHHC:13376 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2693 of 2026 Budheshwar Mahto @ Charku Mahto, son of late Sanku Mahto. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, APP --- 06/05.05.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2025 in connection with Jaldega P.S. (O.P Orga) Case No.12 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No.60 of 2025, registered under Section 64 of the BNS 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – Ist Simdega. 3. The learned counsel for the State has produced a copy of letter contained in Memo No.447 dated 27.04.2026 issued by the FSL, Ranchi stating that some more time is required to prepare the FSL report. However, how much more time is required is not mentioned in the memo. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered on 05.02.2025 and the petitioner was immediately taken into custody and charge sheet was shortly filed on 28.02.2025. The charge was also framed on 03.07.2025 and till 03.02.2026, which is the date of the impugned order, only one prosecution witness has been examined. He submitted that P.W. 1 is the victim. 5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on 08.09.2025 in B.A. No.7603 of 2025, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2026:JHHC:13376 2 7. This bail application is rejected at this stage. 8. However, in the letter issued by FSL though they have prayed for some more time but how much more time is required to complete the process has not even been indicated, which shows absolutely casual approach of FSL in the matter of examining such crucial evidence. Further, only one witness has been examined so far. 9. In such circumstances, this Court directs the opposite party to promptly produce the remaining witnesses before the court and also inform the trial court by taking further information from the FSL as to how much more time is required to submit the FSL report in the matter. 10. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 11. The learned counsel for the State is also directed to communicate this order to the FSL, Ranchi. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:05.05.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:07.05.2026