B.A./8931/2026 of MUKU CHAMPIA @ MOTAY CHAMPA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 24 September 2026

( 2026:JHHC:28808 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8931 of 2026

Muku Champia @ Motay Champia aged about 20 years, S/o Pratap Champia, Resident of village-Chimisai Tola-Kauwasai, P.O. Kauwasai, P.S. Tantnagar (OP), District-West Singhbhum

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …

… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate

For the Opp. Party : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP

---

04/24.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Manjhari P.S. Case No. 22 of 2025, Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 103(1),238, 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2025 and charge has been framed on 02.08.2025 and out of 18 witnesses 06 witnesses have been examined so far and the last witness was examined on 28.04.2026 and there is no progress in the trial. He submits that since the prosecution is not interested in producing the witnesses before the court, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that next date fixed in this case before the learned court is 14.10.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of informant’s sister by a sharp cutting weapon. The petitioner confessed his guilt with respect to the alleged crime and cloths of the accused persons having blood stain and also a Dupatta of the deceased and the murder weapon was recovered on his confessional statement which had the blood of the deceased. However, she is unable to explain as to why the witnesses have not been produced after 28.04.2026. She submits that counter affidavit has

( 2026:JHHC:28808 ) 2

not been filed so far in this case and she has no instruction in this regard. However, she submits that an observation can be made so that the trial may be expedited. The learned counsel submits that there could be some language problem, however, interpreters are available in the court for doing the needful.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner who confessed his guilt leading to recovery of the murder weapon and material witnesses are yet to be examined before the court, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.

6. However, there can be no excuse on the part of the State not to produce the witnesses before the court. In such circumstance, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court including on the next date i.e. 14.10.2026.

7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.

8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.09.2026 Uploaded on 28.09.2026 Binit/