Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8104/2026 of SATENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 17 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8104 of 2026 -------- Satendra Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 38 years, son of Manohar Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Padma, P.O. & P.S.-Padma, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… OppositeParty
2026:JHHC:28177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8104 of 2026
--------
Satendra Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 38 years, son of Manohar Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Padma, P.O. & P.S.-Padma, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…… OppositeParty
-----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner
: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate
Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 03/ Dated: 17th September, 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 197 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1624 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 80(2), 61(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is the second regular bail application of the petitioner and earlier his bail application being B.A. No.12029 of 2025 was rejected vide order dated 25.03.2026 on merits by this Court with direction to the learned trial court to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months otherwise the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail since, the trial could not complete within the time framed by this Court, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in 2026:JHHC:28177
2
tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground for entertaining the second bail application which is fit to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. It appears that earlier bail petition of this petitioner was rejected vide order passed in B.A. No. 12029 of 2025 dated 25.03.2026 on merits. It is reported by learned Trial Court that out of 10 charge- sheeted witnesses altogether 05 witnesses have been examined and trial is in progress.
6. Considering the seriousness of offence, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which stands dismissed on merits.
7. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receiving of this order and petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his bail application if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 17.09.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 20/09/2026