Regular bail application by an accused in custody since 10.01.2025 in a case under Section 96 of the BNS, 2023. Only two of four witnesses examined and they did not fully support the prosecution case. Bail was refused considering the seriousness of the offence, but the State was directed to promptly produce the remaining witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:JHHC:7619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 217 of 2026
Ajay Kumar Manjhi, aged about 22 years, S/O Singheshwar Manjhi, Resident of-Kitta Gadharpur, P.O.-Pathargama, P.S.-Pathargama, District-Godda, (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
--- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Advocate
03 /19.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2025 in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No.09 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.187 of 2025), registered under Sections 96 of B.N.S, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Godda.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of four witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so far, which is apparent from page no.24 of the bail application. He submits that they have not fully supported the prosecution case. He has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2025 having no criminal antecedent.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegations are serious and he is not aware as to what is the present status but only two witnesses were examined till 25.09.2025.
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the seriousness of offence, this Court is not inclined to
1
2026:JHHC:7619
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the 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:19.03.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:20.03.2026
2
1 issue framed by the court
Should the applicant be enlarged on regular bail in a case under Section 96 BNS 2023 given prolonged custody and slow trial progress?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Kumar Manjhi
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
