Shila Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:16931

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 3631 of 2026

¶4

Shila Devi, wife of Manoj Bhuiyan … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP ---

¶8

03/11.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶9

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.10.2024 in connection with S.T. No.48/2025, arising out of Ramkanda P.S. Case No.37/2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.59/2025, registered under Sections 103(1) and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, charge has been framed under Section 103 (1) and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section ¾ of Witch Craft Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Garhwa.

¶10

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. No.6671 of 2025 vide order dated 01.08.2025 and also earlier in B.A. No.1741 of 2025 vide order dated 04.03.2025. The petitioner happens to be the relative of the victim. He has referred to the deposition of P.W. 4 and submitted that P.W. 4 is alleged to be eye witness but she has not supported the prosecution case.

¶11

4. During the course of argument, it appears from the status report received from the court concerned that out of 8 witnesses, 5 witnesses have already been examined till 07.05.2026 and only 3 witnesses including the doctor, investigating officer and one independent witness were yet to be examined.

¶12

5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and she submits that the remaining witnesses shall be promptly produced.

¶13

1

¶14

2026:JHHC:16931

¶15

6. Considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merit earlier and trial is at advanced stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

¶16

7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court so that the trial is taken to a logical end at the earliest.

¶17

8. 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.

¶18

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

¶19

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶20

Date of Order:11.06.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:12.06.2026

¶21

2

Shila Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shila Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manika Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Monu Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dulal Mirdha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alok Poul @ Alok Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand