Imran Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Imran Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail relief granted; the bail application was rejected. As ancillary directions, learned counsel for the State is to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance, and a copy of the order is to be communicated to the learned court concerned through FAX/email.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail despite his bail having been rejected twice earlier on merits, six similar criminal antecedents attributed to him by the State, and recovery of arms from his possession, against the background of prolonged custody since 12.04.2025 and bail already granted to all other co-accused. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, considering that his bail application had been rejected twice earlier on merits, and accordingly the present (third) bail application was rejected.

Ratio / Principle

There can be no excuse for non-production of witnesses before the learned trial court.

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the State was directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL APPLICATION REJECTED — Imran Ansari s/o Md. Kurban Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand, B.A. No. 6181 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, order dated 10.07.2026 (Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary). Third bite at bail in Balumath P.S. Case No. 32/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 555 of 2025 (S.T. Case No. 266 of 2025), pending before Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar, involving Sections 308(4), 308(5), 61(2) and 317(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. Petitioner in custody since 12.04.2025; bail earlier rejected twice on merits (B.A. No. 8093 of 2025, order dated 18.09.2025; B.A. No. 83 of 2026, order dated 23.03.2026). Of six accused, all others already enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches. State opposed bail citing six similar criminal antecedents and recovery of arms from the petitioner. Charge framed on 12.05.2026 but no witness produced; Court rejected the bail application, held there can be no excuse for non-production of witnesses, directed prompt witness production by State counsel, ordered communication of the order to the Director (Prosecution) and the concerned Superintendent of Police, and transmission of a copy to the trial court through FAX/email.

2026:JHHC:20569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 6181 of 2026

Imran Ansari, Son of Md. Kurban Ansari

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

--- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. ---

05 /10.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.04.2025 in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 32/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 555 of 2025 (S.T. Case No. 266 of 2025), registered under Sections 308(4), 308(5), 61(2) and 317(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, section 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected twice; once in B.A. No. 8093 of 2025 vide order dated 18.09.2025 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and thereafter, in B.A. No. 83 of 2026 vide order dated 23.03.2026.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there are altogether six accused persons and except the petitioner, all other accused have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court including the Bench which has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner in B.A. No. 8093 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there are as many as 6 criminal antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner and there is recovery of arms from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that most of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail had submitted that there was no recovery of arms from them and some

2026:JHHC:20569

other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, had submitted that the arms had been planted.

6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12.04.2025 and charge was framed on 12.05.2026, but no witness has turned up so far.

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected twice earlier on merits, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.

8. However, there can be no excuse for non-production of witnesses before the learned court.

9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court.

10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.

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

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Date of Order:10.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:11.07.2026

2